linux-kernel - Re: [patch 3/3] cpusets: add memory_spread

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]

Message-Id: <20071026105431.77d56253.pj@sgi.com>
Date:	Fri, 26 Oct 2007 10:54:31 -0700
From:	Paul Jackson <pj@....com>
To:	Lee Schermerhorn <Lee.Schermerhorn@...com>
Cc:	rientjes@...gle.com, akpm@...ux-foundation.org, ak@...e.de,
	clameter@....com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [patch 3/3] cpusets: add memory_spread_user option

> Will it handle the case of MPOL_INTERLEAVE policy on a shm segment that
> is mapped by tasks in different, possibly disjoint, cpusets.  Local
> allocation does, and my patch does.  That was one of the primary
> goals--to address an issue that Christoph has with shared policies.
> cpusets really muck these up!

It probably won't handle that.  I don't get along too well with shmem.

Can you to an anti-shmem bigot how MPOL_INTERLEAVE should work with
shmem segments mapped in diverse ways by different tasks in different
cpusets?  What would be the key attribute(s) of a proper solution?
Maybe if we keep it simple enough, I can avoid mucking it up too much
this time around.

-- 
                  I won't rest till it's the best ...
                  Programmer, Linux Scalability
                  Paul Jackson <pj@....com> 1.925.600.0401
-
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/