On Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at 08:11:35PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Tue 19-11-13 19:42:00, Andi Kleen wrote:
> > On Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at 11:42:03AM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > > On Mon 18-11-13 16:50:22, Andi Kleen wrote:
> > > [...]
> > > > diff --git a/include/linux/cpuset.h b/include/linux/cpuset.h
> > > > index cc1b01c..10966f5 100644
> > > > --- a/include/linux/cpuset.h
> > > > +++ b/include/linux/cpuset.h
> > > > @@ -72,12 +72,14 @@ extern int cpuset_slab_spread_node(void);
> > > >
> > > > static inline int cpuset_do_page_mem_spread(void)
> > > > {
> > > > - return current->flags & PF_SPREAD_PAGE;
> > > > + return (current->flags & PF_SPREAD_PAGE) ||
> > > > + sysctl_spread_file_cache;
> > > > }
> > >
> > > But this might break applications that explicitly opt out from
> > > spreading.
> >
> > What do you mean? There's no such setting at the moment.
> >
> > They can only enable it.
>
> cpuset_update_task_spread_flag allows disabling both flags. You can do
> so for example via cpuset cgroup controller.
Ok.
So you're saying it should look up the cpuset. I'm reluctant do
that. It would make this path quite a bit more expensive.
Is it really a big problem to override that setting with
the global sysctl. Seems like sensible semantics for me.
-Andi
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>