> Will it handle the case of MPOL_INTERLEAVE policy on a shm segment that
> is mapped by tasks in different, possibly disjoint, cpusets. Local
> allocation does, and my patch does. That was one of the primary
> goals--to address an issue that Christoph has with shared policies.
> cpusets really muck these up!
It probably won't handle that. I don't get along too well with shmem.
Can you to an anti-shmem bigot how MPOL_INTERLEAVE should work with
shmem segments mapped in diverse ways by different tasks in different
cpusets? What would be the key attribute(s) of a proper solution?
Maybe if we keep it simple enough, I can avoid mucking it up too much
this time around.
--
I won't rest till it's the best ...
Programmer, Linux Scalability
Paul Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 1.925.600.0401
-
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/
