On Fri, 26 Oct 2007, Lee Schermerhorn wrote: > > > Now, if we could replace the 'cpuset_mems_allowed' nodemask with a > > > pointer to something stable, it might be a win. > > > > The memory policies are already shared and have refcounters for that > > purpose. > > I must have missed that in the code I'm reading :)
What is the benefit of having pointers to nodemasks? We likely would need to have refcounts in those nodemasks too? So we duplicate a lot of the characteristics of memory policies? - 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/
