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
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 tes
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 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 fr
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
6 matches
Mail list logo
