David wrote:
quoted text
> If something that was previously unaccepted is now allowed with a 
> newly-introduced semantic, that's an API change.

Agreed, as I wrote earlier:
quoted text
> It should work with libnuma and be
> fully upward compatible with current code (except perhaps code that
> depends on getting an error from requesting MPOL_INTERLEAVE on a node
> not allowed.)

Without at least this sort of change to MPOL_INTERLEAVE nodemasks,
allowing either empty nodemasks (Lee's proposal) or extending them
outside the current cpuset (what I'm cooking up now), there is no way
for a task that is currently confined to a single node cpuset to say
anything about how it wants be interleaved in the event that it is
subsequently moved to a larger cpuset.  Currently, such a task is only
allowed to pass exactly one particular nodemask to set_mempolicy
MPOL_INTERLEAVE calls, with exactly the one bit corresponding to its
current node.  No useful information can be passed via an API that only
allows a single legal value.

But you knew that ...

You were just correcting my erroneously unqualified statement.  Good.

-- 
                  I won't rest till it's the best ...
                  Programmer, Linux Scalability
                  Paul Jackson <pj@sgi.com> 1.925.600.0401
-
unsubscribe notice
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/