Re: [patch 2/2] cpusets: add interleave_over_allowed option

[David Rientjes]

On Mon, 29 Oct 2007, Lee Schermerhorn wrote:

> And even when the intent is to preserve the cpuset relative positions of
> the nodes in the nodemask, this really only makes sense if the original
> and modified cpusets have the same physical topology w/rt multi-level
> NUMA interconnects.  This is something that has bothered me about
> dynamic cpusets and current policy remapping.  We don't do a good job of
> explaining the implications of changing cpuset topology on applications,
> nor do we handle it very well in the code.  Paul addresses one of my
> concerns in a later message in this thread, so I'll comment there.
> 

I agree with your assessment of our current policy remapping with respect 
to the passed nodemask, I think it's troublesome.  Whether we can change 
that now is another question, but the remap certainly doesn't help respect 
the intent of the application and the mempolicies they have set up when 
influenced by an outside entity such as cpusets.

See my new Choice C alternative.

		David
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/