Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1765149AbYBNTqE (ORCPT ); Thu, 14 Feb 2008 14:46:04 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1758809AbYBNTpw (ORCPT ); Thu, 14 Feb 2008 14:45:52 -0500 Received: from smtp-out.google.com ([216.239.45.13]:52661 "EHLO smtp-out.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1757266AbYBNTpv (ORCPT ); Thu, 14 Feb 2008 14:45:51 -0500 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; s=beta; d=google.com; c=nofws; q=dns; h=received:date:from:x-x-sender:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to: message-id:references:user-agent:mime-version:content-type; b=mF87OI0v4XNpGMdUI+hfeLI6qLcZR2h6EoUD3/FO7zpb7pvIKS+lDVpUsdBePmDIh VIZs7Fk8vd7MVo7nm6kKQ== Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2008 11:45:14 -0800 (PST) From: David Rientjes X-X-Sender: rientjes@chino.kir.corp.google.com To: Paul Jackson cc: Lee.Schermerhorn@hp.com, akpm@linux-foundation.org, clameter@sgi.com, ak@suse.de, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, mel@csn.ul.ie Subject: Re: [patch 3/4] mempolicy: add MPOL_F_STATIC_NODES flag In-Reply-To: <20080214042643.dff40c72.pj@sgi.com> Message-ID: References: <1202862136.4974.41.camel@localhost> <20080212215242.0342fa25.pj@sgi.com> <20080212221354.a33799f2.pj@sgi.com> <20080213020344.45c9d924.pj@sgi.com> <20080213110426.15179378.pj@sgi.com> <20080213142956.5ba52101.pj@sgi.com> <20080214042643.dff40c72.pj@sgi.com> User-Agent: Alpine 1.00 (DEB 882 2007-12-20) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 890 Lines: 26 On Thu, 14 Feb 2008, Paul Jackson wrote: > No and yes. The manner in which too many nodes (as requested in a > RELATIVE mask) are folded into too small a cpuset is not actually > that critical, so long as it doesn't come up empty. However, what > I'll be recommending, in a follow-up patch, will be folding the > larger set into the smaller one modulo the size of the smaller one. > So basically the "relative" nodemask that is passed with MPOL_F_RELATIVE_NODES is wrapped around the allowed nodes? relative nodemask mems_allowed result 1,3,5 4 4 1,3,5 4-6 4-6 1,3,5 4-8 4-5,7 1,3,5 4-10 4,6,8 Is that correct? David -- 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/