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: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0710261357370.17483@schroedinger.engr.sgi.com> Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2007 14:05:44 -0700 (PDT) From: Christoph Lameter <clameter@....com> To: David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com> cc: Paul Jackson <pj@....com>, Lee.Schermerhorn@...com, akpm@...ux-foundation.org, ak@...e.de, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: [patch 2/2] cpusets: add interleave_over_allowed option On Fri, 26 Oct 2007, David Rientjes wrote: > Well, passing a single node to set_mempolicy() for MPOL_INTERLEAVE doesn't > make a whole lot of sense in the first place. I prefer your solution of > allowing set_mempolicy(MPOL_INTERLEAVE, NODE_MASK_ALL) to mean "interleave > me over everything I'm allowed to access." NODE_MASK_ALL would be stored > in the struct mempolicy and used later on mpol_rebind_policy(). So instead of an empty nodemask we would pass a nodemask where all bits are set? And they would stay set but the cpuset restrictions would effectively limit the interleaving to the allowed set? rebind could ignore rebinds if all bits are set. - 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