From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1757322Ab0ELTjS (ORCPT ); Wed, 12 May 2010 15:39:18 -0400 Received: from e23smtp03.au.ibm.com ([202.81.31.145]:51670 "EHLO e23smtp03.au.ibm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753386Ab0ELTjQ (ORCPT ); Wed, 12 May 2010 15:39:16 -0400 Date: Thu, 13 May 2010 01:09:10 +0530 From: Balbir Singh To: Paul Menage Cc: Dhaval Giani , peterz@infradead.org, lennart@poettering.net, jsafrane@redhat.com, tglx@linutronix.de, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH/RFC] Have sane default values for cpusets Message-ID: <20100512193910.GP3296@balbir.in.ibm.com> Reply-To: balbir@linux.vnet.ibm.com References: <1273669541.3086.24.camel@localhost> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-08-17) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org * menage@google.com [2010-05-12 12:36:57]: > On Wed, May 12, 2010 at 12:29 PM, Dhaval Giani wrote: > >> I think the idea is reasonable - the only way that I could see it > >> breaking someone would be code that currently does something like: > >> > >> mkdir A > >> mkdir B > >> echo 1 > A/mem_exclusive > >> echo 1 > B/mem_exclusive > >> echo $mems_for_a > A/mems > >> echo $mems_for_b > B/mems > >> > >> The attempts to set the mem_exclusive flags would fail, since A and B > >> would both have all of the parent's mems. > >> > > > > But would this not fail otherwise? > > > > Assuming that mems_for_a and mems_for_b were disjoint, it would be > fine currently. > Yep, that does seem like breakage. -- Three Cheers, Balbir