On Sat, 2007-06-09 at 21:10 -0700, dean gaudet wrote:
> On Tue, 15 May 2007, William Lee Irwin III wrote:
>
> > On Tue, May 15, 2007 at 10:41:06PM -0700, dean gaudet wrote:
> > > prior to 2.6.21 i could "numactl --interleave=all" and use SHM_HUGETLB
> > > and
> > > the interleave policy would
On Sat, 2007-06-09 at 21:10 -0700, dean gaudet wrote:
On Tue, 15 May 2007, William Lee Irwin III wrote:
On Tue, May 15, 2007 at 10:41:06PM -0700, dean gaudet wrote:
prior to 2.6.21 i could numactl --interleave=all and use SHM_HUGETLB
and
the interleave policy would be respected.
On Sat, Jun 09, 2007 at 09:10:51PM -0700, dean gaudet wrote:
> ok i've narrowed it some... maybe.
> in commit 8ef8286689c6b5bc76212437b85bdd2ba749ee44 things work fine, numa
> policy is respected...
> the very next commit bc56bba8f31bd99f350a5ebfd43d50f411b620c7 breaks shm
> badly causing the
On Tue, 15 May 2007, William Lee Irwin III wrote:
> On Tue, May 15, 2007 at 10:41:06PM -0700, dean gaudet wrote:
> > prior to 2.6.21 i could "numactl --interleave=all" and use SHM_HUGETLB and
> > the interleave policy would be respected. as of 2.6.21 it doesn't seem to
> > respect the policy
On Tue, 15 May 2007, William Lee Irwin III wrote:
> On Tue, May 15, 2007 at 10:41:06PM -0700, dean gaudet wrote:
> > prior to 2.6.21 i could "numactl --interleave=all" and use SHM_HUGETLB and
> > the interleave policy would be respected. as of 2.6.21 it doesn't seem to
> > respect the policy
On Tue, 15 May 2007, William Lee Irwin III wrote:
On Tue, May 15, 2007 at 10:41:06PM -0700, dean gaudet wrote:
prior to 2.6.21 i could numactl --interleave=all and use SHM_HUGETLB and
the interleave policy would be respected. as of 2.6.21 it doesn't seem to
respect the policy on
On Tue, 15 May 2007, William Lee Irwin III wrote:
On Tue, May 15, 2007 at 10:41:06PM -0700, dean gaudet wrote:
prior to 2.6.21 i could numactl --interleave=all and use SHM_HUGETLB and
the interleave policy would be respected. as of 2.6.21 it doesn't seem to
respect the policy on
On Sat, Jun 09, 2007 at 09:10:51PM -0700, dean gaudet wrote:
ok i've narrowed it some... maybe.
in commit 8ef8286689c6b5bc76212437b85bdd2ba749ee44 things work fine, numa
policy is respected...
the very next commit bc56bba8f31bd99f350a5ebfd43d50f411b620c7 breaks shm
badly causing the test
On Tue, May 15, 2007 at 10:41:06PM -0700, dean gaudet wrote:
> prior to 2.6.21 i could "numactl --interleave=all" and use SHM_HUGETLB and
> the interleave policy would be respected. as of 2.6.21 it doesn't seem to
> respect the policy on SHM_HUGETLB request.
> see test program below.
> output
On Tue, May 15, 2007 at 10:41:06PM -0700, dean gaudet wrote:
prior to 2.6.21 i could numactl --interleave=all and use SHM_HUGETLB and
the interleave policy would be respected. as of 2.6.21 it doesn't seem to
respect the policy on SHM_HUGETLB request.
see test program below.
output from
prior to 2.6.21 i could "numactl --interleave=all" and use SHM_HUGETLB and
the interleave policy would be respected. as of 2.6.21 it doesn't seem to
respect the policy on SHM_HUGETLB request.
see test program below.
output from pre-2.6.21:
2ab19620 interleave=0-3 file=/2\040(deleted)
prior to 2.6.21 i could numactl --interleave=all and use SHM_HUGETLB and
the interleave policy would be respected. as of 2.6.21 it doesn't seem to
respect the policy on SHM_HUGETLB request.
see test program below.
output from pre-2.6.21:
2ab19620 interleave=0-3 file=/2\040(deleted) huge
12 matches
Mail list logo
