From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1763531AbYBNUDD (ORCPT ); Thu, 14 Feb 2008 15:03:03 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1758080AbYBNUCw (ORCPT ); Thu, 14 Feb 2008 15:02:52 -0500 Received: from mx2.suse.de ([195.135.220.15]:48719 "EHLO mx2.suse.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1757753AbYBNUCu (ORCPT ); Thu, 14 Feb 2008 15:02:50 -0500 From: Andi Kleen Organization: SUSE Linux Products GmbH, Nuernberg, GF: Markus Rex, HRB 16746 (AG Nuernberg) To: Christoph Lameter Subject: Re: [RFC] bitmap relative operator for mempolicy extensions Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2008 21:02:41 +0100 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.6 Cc: Paul Jackson , David Rientjes , Lee.Schermerhorn@hp.com, mel@csn.ul.ie, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org, travis@sgi.com References: <20080214123528.25274.84387.sendpatchset@jackhammer.engr.sgi.com> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200802142102.41420.ak@suse.de> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thursday 14 February 2008 20:27:59 Christoph Lameter wrote: > Excellent. Relative node masks are a nice feature and may allow us to even > cut down the size of the bitmasks for configurations with large numbers of > nodes. > > Reviewed-by: Christoph Lameter > > ccing Mike since he may need something similar for cpu masks which are > getting a bit too large for 4k systems on x86_64. You're saying the kernel should use these relative masks internally? That means it would be impossible to run workloads that use the complete machine because you couldn't represent all nodes. Doesn't sound like a good idea. -Andi