Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S267638AbUJCAAj (ORCPT ); Sat, 2 Oct 2004 20:00:39 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S267645AbUJCAAj (ORCPT ); Sat, 2 Oct 2004 20:00:39 -0400 Received: from gizmo04ps.bigpond.com ([144.140.71.14]:21187 "HELO gizmo04ps.bigpond.com") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S267638AbUJCAAi (ORCPT ); Sat, 2 Oct 2004 20:00:38 -0400 Message-ID: <415F4121.2030308@bigpond.net.au> Date: Sun, 03 Oct 2004 10:00:33 +1000 From: Peter Williams User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 0.8 (X11/20040913) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Hubertus Franke CC: dipankar@in.ibm.com, Paul Jackson , Andrew Morton , ckrm-tech@lists.sourceforge.net, efocht@hpce.nec.com, mbligh@aracnet.com, lse-tech@lists.sourceforge.net, hch@infradead.org, steiner@sgi.com, jbarnes@sgi.com, sylvain.jeaugey@bull.net, djh@sgi.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, colpatch@us.ibm.com, Simon.Derr@bull.net, ak@suse.de, sivanich@sgi.com Subject: Re: [Lse-tech] [PATCH] cpusets - big numa cpu and memory placement References: <20040805100901.3740.99823.84118@sam.engr.sgi.com> <20040805190500.3c8fb361.pj@sgi.com> <247790000.1091762644@[10.10.2.4]> <200408061730.06175.efocht@hpce.nec.com> <20040806231013.2b6c44df.pj@sgi.com> <411685D6.5040405@watson.ibm.com> <20041001164118.45b75e17.akpm@osdl.org> <20041001230644.39b551af.pj@sgi.com> <20041002145521.GA8868@in.ibm.com> <415ED3E3.6050008@watson.ibm.com> <415F37F9.6060002@bigpond.net.au> <415F3D4C.6060907@watson.ibm.com> In-Reply-To: <415F3D4C.6060907@watson.ibm.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 861 Lines: 24 Hubertus Franke wrote: >> be a possible solution. Of course, this proposed modification >> wouldn't make any sense with less than 3 CPUs. > > > Why ? It is even useful for 2 cpus. > Currently cpumem sets do not enforce that there is not intersections > between siblings of a hierarchy. There's only 3 non empty sets and only one of them can have a CPU removed from the set without becoming empty. So the pain wouldn't be worth the gain. Peter -- Peter Williams pwil3058@bigpond.net.au "Learning, n. The kind of ignorance distinguishing the studious." -- Ambrose Bierce - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/