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:	Wed, 7 Feb 2007 09:43:44 -0800
From:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	Andi Kleen <ak@...e.de>
Cc:	KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	GOTO <y-goto@...fujitsu.com>,
	Christoph Lameter <clameter@...r.sgi.com>
Subject: Re: [2.6.20][PATCH] fix mempolicy error check on a system with
 memory-less-node

On Wed, 7 Feb 2007 17:50:55 +0100 Andi Kleen <ak@...e.de> wrote:

> On Wednesday 07 February 2007 17:23, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > On 07 Feb 2007 11:20:06 +0100 Andi Kleen <ak@...e.de> wrote:
> > 
> > > KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com> writes:
> > > 
> > > > current mempolicy just checks whether a node is online or not.
> > > > If there is memory-less-node, mempolicy's target node can be
> > > > invalid.
> > > > This patch adds a check whether a node has memory or not.
> > > 
> > > IMHO there shouldn't be any memory less nodes. The architecture code
> > > should not create them. The CPU should be assigned to a nearby node instead.
> > 
> > umm, why?
> > 
> > A node which has CPUs and no memory is obviously physically possible and
> > isn't a completely insane thing for a user to do.  I'd have thought that
> > the kernel should be able to cleanly and clearly handle it,
> 
> It doesn't.

Fix it?

> > and to 
> > accurately present the machine's topology to the user without us having to
> > go adding falsehoods like this?
> 
> a node is a piece of memory. Without memory it doesn't make sense.

Who said?  I can pick up a piece of circuitry which has four CPUs and no
RAM, wave it about then stick it in a computer.  The kernel is just wrong,
surely?
-
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/

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ