From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2007 11:25:38 -0700 From: Paul Jackson Subject: Re: cpusets vs. mempolicy and how to get interleaving Message-Id: <20070820112538.42337443.pj@sgi.com> In-Reply-To: References: <46C63BDE.20602@google.com> <46C63D5D.3020107@google.com> <46C8E604.8040101@google.com> <20070819193431.dce5d4cf.pj@sgi.com> <46C92AF4.20607@google.com> <20070819225320.6562fbd1.pj@sgi.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: David Rientjes Cc: solo@google.com, clameter@sgi.com, linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: David wrote: > Like I've already said, there is absolutely no reason to add a new MPOL > variant for this case. As Christoph already mentioned, PF_SPREAD_PAGE > gets similar results. So just modify mpol_rebind_policy() so that if > /dev/cpuset//memory_spread_page is true, you rebind the > interleaved nodemask to all nodes in the new nodemask. That's the > well-defined cpuset interface for getting an interleaved behavior already. Hmm ... nice. As David likely guesses, I didn't read his earlier suggestion of this. Thanks for repeating it. -- I won't rest till it's the best ... Programmer, Linux Scalability Paul Jackson 1.925.600.0401 -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: email@kvack.org