From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-ID: <46C9DD62.8020803@google.com> Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2007 11:28:50 -0700 From: Ethan Solomita MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: cpusets vs. mempolicy and how to get interleaving 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> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: David Rientjes Cc: Paul Jackson , clameter@sgi.com, linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: David Rientjes 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. memory_spread_page is only for file-backed pages, not anon pages. -- Ethan -- 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