Other than the detail of allowing a newline from doing:
echo > cpus
to work, I'm ok with this patch. It passes my cpuset_test,
and seems to allow unpopulating cpusets, as advertised.
Aha - as I was writing this, I noticed that the command:
echo -n '' > cpus
does -not- work! The ech
Paul M wrote:
> Otherwise the only way to reclaim
> the node for a different sibling is to delete the cpuset.
Ah - I just made sense of that sentence.
It means that if a particular memory node is in one cpuset, and you'd
like to have it in another cpuset instead, then with the existing
kernel cod
Paul M wrote:
> Otherwise the only way to reclaim
> the node for a different sibling is to delete the cpuset.
I couldn't make sense of that sentence. Could you restate it?
> Yes, but that's arguably an artefact of the user using the wrong tool
> to update the cpu/node set. Doing "echo -n > /dev/
On 5/1/07, Paul Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Why do you need this? It adds a little more code, and changes
semantics a little bit, so I'd think it should have at least a
little bit of justfication.
We have cases where we'd like to be able to clear the memory nodes
away from a (temporaril
David wrote:
> You currently cannot remove all cpus or mems from cpus_allowed or
> mems_allowed of a cpuset. We now allow both if there are no attached
> tasks.
Why do you need this? It adds a little more code, and changes
semantics a little bit, so I'd think it should have at least a
little bit
You currently cannot remove all cpus or mems from cpus_allowed or
mems_allowed of a cpuset. We now allow both if there are no attached
tasks.
Cc: Paul Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: Christoph Lameter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Signed-off-by: Paul Menage <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Signed-off-by: David Rientjes
6 matches
Mail list logo
