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
| ||
|
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists