On Fri, 26 Oct 2007, Paul Jackson wrote: > > Will it handle the case of MPOL_INTERLEAVE policy on a shm segment that > > is mapped by tasks in different, possibly disjoint, cpusets. Local > > allocation does, and my patch does. That was one of the primary > > goals--to address an issue that Christoph has with shared policies. > > cpusets really muck these up! > > It probably won't handle that. I don't get along too well with shmem.
IMHO shmem policy support is pretty much messed up (seems that we introduced new races by trying to fix the refcounts). I tend to ignore the stuff unless it impacts regular shared or regular memory. Before we do any of this fancy stuff lets at least get the refcount handling right? > Can you to an anti-shmem bigot how MPOL_INTERLEAVE should work with > shmem segments mapped in diverse ways by different tasks in different > cpusets? What would be the key attribute(s) of a proper solution? > Maybe if we keep it simple enough, I can avoid mucking it up too much > this time around. With relative nodemasks we could have a MPOL_INTERLEAVE policy working in multiple cpuset contexts. If nodes 0 and 1 are set in a nodemask then the first two nodes of the current cpuset are interleaved through. Nodes that do not exist are ignored. So if there is no second node then MPOL_INTERLEAVE becomes a noop. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
