On Fri, 2007-10-26 at 10:54 -0700, 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.
Not surprising :). shmem doesn't get along too well with cpusets. > > Can you to an anti-shmem bigot how MPOL_INTERLEAVE should work with ^ explain ? > 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. Personally, I'm of the opinion "if it hurts when you do that, don't do that". I have uses for shared memory and mempolicies on the same, but they don't involve sharing shmem [nor mapped files] between cpusets nor dynamically changing cpusets. So, my approach would be to document the issues clearly [another reason I'd like to see cpuset man pages] and make sure that folks can't accidentally trip over them. But, I suppose all the documentation in the world won't stop some people from hurting themselves. As my grandmother used to tell me, "children and fools shouldn't play with sharp tools." [Then she'd always ask me, "Which one are you?" I guess time has answered that question...] Lee - 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/