Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755376AbcJLOiu (ORCPT ); Wed, 12 Oct 2016 10:38:50 -0400 Received: from mail-lf0-f67.google.com ([209.85.215.67]:35303 "EHLO mail-lf0-f67.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932685AbcJLOiU (ORCPT ); Wed, 12 Oct 2016 10:38:20 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Reply-To: mtk.manpages@gmail.com In-Reply-To: References: <20161010162310.2463-1-kwapulinski.piotr@gmail.com> <4d816fee-4690-2ed7-7faa-c437e67cfbf5@gmail.com> From: "Michael Kerrisk (man-pages)" Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2016 16:35:26 +0200 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 0/1] man/set_mempolicy.2,mbind.2: add MPOL_LOCAL NUMA memory policy documentation To: Christoph Lameter Cc: Piotr Kwapulinski , "Kirill A. Shutemov" , Vlastimil Babka , David Rientjes , mhocko@kernel.org, mgorman@techsingularity.net, Liang Chen , nzimmer@sgi.com, Peter Zijlstra , Rik van Riel , Lee Schermerhorn , jmarchan@redhat.com, Joe Perches , Jonathan Corbet , SeokHoon Yoon , n-horiguchi@ah.jp.nec.com, "linux-mm@kvack.org" , lkml , linux-man , Andrew Morton , linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, Linux API Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1478 Lines: 37 Hi Christoph, On 12 October 2016 at 16:08, Christoph Lameter wrote: > On Wed, 12 Oct 2016, Michael Kerrisk (man-pages) wrote: > >> > +arguments must specify the empty set. If the "local node" is low >> > +on free memory the kernel will try to allocate memory from other >> > +nodes. The kernel will allocate memory from the "local node" >> > +whenever memory for this node is available. If the "local node" >> > +is not allowed by the process's current cpuset context the kernel >> > +will try to allocate memory from other nodes. The kernel will >> > +allocate memory from the "local node" whenever it becomes allowed >> > +by the process's current cpuset context. In contrast >> > +.B MPOL_DEFAULT >> > +reverts to the policy of the process which may have been set with >> > +.BR set_mempolicy (2). >> > +It may not be the "local allocation". >> >> What is the sense of "may not be" here? (And repeated below). >> Is the meaning "this could be something other than"? >> Presumably the answer is yes, in which case I'll clarify >> the wording there. Let me know. > > Someone may have set for example a round robin policy with numactl > --interleave before starting the process? Then allocations will go through > all nodes. So the sense is then "this could be something other than", right? Cheers, Michael -- Michael Kerrisk Linux man-pages maintainer; http://www.kernel.org/doc/man-pages/ Linux/UNIX System Programming Training: http://man7.org/training/