linux-kernel - Re: [patch 2/2] cpusets: add interleave_over

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Thu, 25 Oct 2007 18:30:01 -0700 (PDT)
From:	David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>
To:	Paul Jackson <pj@....com>
cc:	akpm@...ux-foundation.org, ak@...e.de, clameter@....com,
	Lee.Schermerhorn@...com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [patch 2/2] cpusets: add interleave_over_allowed option

On Thu, 25 Oct 2007, Paul Jackson wrote:

>     Can we call this "memory_spread_user" instead, or something else
>     matching "memory_spread_*" ?
> 

Sounds better.  I was hoping somebody was going to come forward with an 
alternative that sounded better than interleave_over_allowed.

>     How about instead of your current_cpuset_interleaved_mems() routine
>     that returns a nodemask, rather have a routine that returns a Boolean,
>     indicating whether this new flag is set, used as in:
> 	if (cpuset_is_memory_spread_user())
> 		tmp = cpuset_current_mems_allowed();
> 	else
> 		nodes_remap(tmp, pol->v.nodes, *mpolmask, *newmask);
> 	pol->v.nodes = tmp;
> 

That sounds reasonable, it will simply be a wrapper around 
is_interleave_over_allowed() or what we're now calling is_spread_user().

>     The existing kernel code for mm/mempolicy.c:mpol_rebind_policy()
>     looks buggy to me.  The node_remap() call for the MPOL_INTERLEAVE
>     case seems like it should come before, not after, updating mpolmask
>     to the newmask.  Fixing that, and consolidating the multiple lines
>     doing "*mpolmask = *newmask" for each case, into a single such line
>     at the end of the switch(){} statement, results in the following
>     patch.  Could you confirm my suspicions and push this one too.
>     It should be a part of your patch set, so we don't waste Andrew's
>     time resolving the inevitable patch collisions we'll see otherwise.
> 

For setting current->il_next, both cases work but yours will be better 
balanced for the next interleaved allocation.  I'll apply it to my 
patchset.

Thanks for the review.

		David
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/