On Tue, 27 Jan 2009, Nikanth Karthikesan wrote: > > I don't understand what you're arguing for here. Are you suggesting that > > we should not prefer tasks that intersect the set of allowable nodes? > > That makes no sense if the goal is to allow for future memory freeing. > > > > No. Actually I am just wondering, will it be possible to check whether a > particular task has memory allocated or mmaped from this node to avoid killing > an innocent task. That's certainly idealistic, but cannot be done in an inexpensive way that would scale with the large systems that clients of cpusets typically use. _______________________________________________ Containers mailing list Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
