David wrote:
quoted text
> I prefer Choice B because it does not force mempolicies to have any 
> dependence on cpusets with regard to what nodemask is passed.

Yes, well said.

quoted text
> It would be very good to store the passed nodemask to set_mempolicy in 
> struct mempolicy, 

Yes - that's what I'm intending to do.

quoted text
> If the cpuset has fewer than four nodes, the behavior 
> should be undefined (probably implemented to just cycle the set of 
> mems_allowed until you reach the fourth entry).

I do intend to implement it as you suggest.  See the lib/bitmap.c
routines bitmap_remap() and bitmap_bitremap(), and the nodemask
wrappers for these, nodes_remap() and node_remap().  They will
define the cycling, or I sometimes call it folding.

I would have tended to make this folding a defined part of the API,
though I will grant that the possibility of being lazy and forgetting
to document it seems attractive (less to document ;).

quoted text
> That [running in a cpuset with fewer nodes than used in a memory policy
> mask] is the result of constraining a task to a cpuset that obviously
> wants access to more nodes -- it's a userspace mistake and abusing
> cpusets so that the task does not get what it expects.

Nah - I wouldn't put it that way.  It's no mistake or abuse.  It's just
one more example of a kernel making too few resources look sufficient
by sharing, multiplexing and virtualizing them.  That's what kernels do.

-- 
                  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/