linux-kernel - Re: [rfc] balance-on-fork NUMA placement

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Message-ID: <20070803011448.GF14775@wotan.suse.de>
Date:	Fri, 3 Aug 2007 03:14:48 +0200
From:	Nick Piggin <npiggin@...e.de>
To:	Christoph Lameter <clameter@....com>
Cc:	Andi Kleen <ak@...e.de>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Linux Memory Management List <linux-mm@...ck.org>
Subject: Re: [rfc] balance-on-fork NUMA placement

On Thu, Aug 02, 2007 at 06:02:56PM -0700, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> On Fri, 3 Aug 2007, Nick Piggin wrote:
> 
> > > Ok. So MPOL_BIND on a single node. We would have to save the current 
> > > memory policy on the stack and then restore it later. Then you would need 
> > > a special call anyways.
> > 
> > Well the memory policy will already be set to MPOL_BIND at this point.
> > The slab allocator I think would just have to honour the node at the
> > object level.
> 
> Who set the policy? The parent process may have its own memory policy. If 
> you set that then the earlier policy is lost.

Yeah it only gets set if the parent is initially using a default policy
at this stage (and then is restored afterwards of course).

-
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/