From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932132Ab0ELThF (ORCPT ); Wed, 12 May 2010 15:37:05 -0400 Received: from smtp-out.google.com ([216.239.44.51]:37681 "EHLO smtp-out.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932092Ab0ELThB (ORCPT ); Wed, 12 May 2010 15:37:01 -0400 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; s=beta; d=google.com; c=nofws; q=dns; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to: cc:content-type:x-system-of-record; b=tX5tXNGWlsgI3PIN+CVr5eOaM/pYhmQKB9+9VvIS/2ELyom+DAdxeAdbU6f4UJtAp 0iuHPdBISi80AJEshngDQ== MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: References: <1273669541.3086.24.camel@localhost> Date: Wed, 12 May 2010 12:36:57 -0700 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH/RFC] Have sane default values for cpusets From: Paul Menage To: Dhaval Giani Cc: balbir@linux.vnet.ibm.com, peterz@infradead.org, lennart@poettering.net, jsafrane@redhat.com, tglx@linutronix.de, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 X-System-Of-Record: true Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org 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. Paul