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:   Fri, 21 Oct 2016 09:22:49 +0200
From:   "Michael Kerrisk (man-pages)" <mtk.manpages@...il.com>
To:     Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>
Cc:     Piotr Kwapulinski <kwapulinski.piotr@...il.com>, mhocko@...nel.org,
        mgorman@...hsingularity.net,
        Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
        Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
        "linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
        lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-man <linux-man@...r.kernel.org>,
        Brice Goglin <Brice.Goglin@...ia.fr>
Subject: Re: Rewording language in mbind(2) to "threads" not "processes"

Hi Christoph,

Did you have any thoughts on my follow-on question below?

Cheers,

Michael



On 10/14/2016 12:09 PM, Michael Kerrisk (man-pages) wrote:
> Hi Christoph,
> 
> On 13 October 2016 at 20:16, Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, 13 Oct 2016, Michael Kerrisk (man-pages) wrote:
>>
>>> @@ -100,7 +100,10 @@ If, however, the shared memory region was created with the
>>>  .B SHM_HUGETLB
>>>  flag,
>>>  the huge pages will be allocated according to the policy specified
>>> -only if the page allocation is caused by the process that calls
>>> +only if the page allocation is caused by the thread that calls
>>> +.\"
>>> +.\" ??? Is it correct to change "process" to "thread" in the preceding line?
>>
>> No leave it as process. Pages get one map refcount per page table
>> that references them (meaning a process). More than one map refcount means
>> that multiple processes have mapped the page.
>>
>>> @@ -300,7 +303,10 @@ is specified in
>>>  .IR flags ,
>>>  then the kernel will attempt to move all the existing pages
>>>  in the memory range so that they follow the policy.
>>> -Pages that are shared with other processes will not be moved.
>>> +Pages that are shared with other threads will not be moved.
>>> +.\"
>>> +.\" ??? Is it correct to change "processes" to "threads" in the preceding line?
>>> +.\"
>>
>> Leave it. Same as before.
>>
>>>  If
>>>  then the kernel will attempt to move all existing pages in the memory range
>>> -regardless of whether other processes use the pages.
>>> -The calling process must be privileged
>>> +regardless of whether other threads use the pages.
>>> +.\"
>>> +.\" ??? Is it correct to change "processes" to "threads" in the preceding line?
>>> +.\"
>>
>> Leave as process.
> 
> Thanks. So, are all the other cases where I changed "process" to
> "thread" okay then?
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Michael
> 


-- 
Michael Kerrisk
Linux man-pages maintainer; http://www.kernel.org/doc/man-pages/
Linux/UNIX System Programming Training: http://man7.org/training/

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ