On Wed, Dec 02, 2020 at 04:42:33PM +0800, Huang Ying wrote: > Signed-off-by: "Huang, Ying" <ying.hu...@intel.com> > --- > man2/set_mempolicy.2 | 9 +++++++++ > 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/man2/set_mempolicy.2 b/man2/set_mempolicy.2 > index 68011eecb..3754b3e12 100644 > --- a/man2/set_mempolicy.2 > +++ b/man2/set_mempolicy.2 > @@ -113,6 +113,12 @@ A nonempty > .I nodemask > specifies node IDs that are relative to the set of > node IDs allowed by the process's current cpuset. > +.TP > +.BR MPOL_F_NUMA_BALANCING " (since Linux 5.11)" > +Enable the Linux kernel NUMA balancing for the task if it is supported > +by kernel. > +If the flag isn't supported by Linux kernel, return -1 and errno is > +set to EINVAL. > .PP > .I nodemask > points to a bit mask of node IDs that contains up to > @@ -293,6 +299,9 @@ argument specified both
Should this be expanded more to clarify it applies to MPOL_BIND specifically? Maybe the first patch should be expanded more and explictly fail if MPOL_F_NUMA_BALANCING is used with anything other than MPOL_BIND? > .B MPOL_F_STATIC_NODES > and > .BR MPOL_F_RELATIVE_NODES . > +Or, the > +.B MPOL_F_NUMA_BALANCING > +isn't supported by the Linux kernel. This will be difficult for an app to distinguish but we can't go back in time and make this ENOSYS :( The linux-api people might have more guidance but it may go to the extent of including a small test program in the manual page for a sequence that tests whether MPOL_F_NUMA_BALANCING works. They might have a better recommendation on how it should be handled. -- Mel Gorman SUSE Labs
