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: <alpine.DEB.0.9999.0710261406330.10620@chino.kir.corp.google.com> Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2007 14:08:50 -0700 (PDT) From: David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com> To: Christoph Lameter <clameter@....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, Christoph Lameter 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? > You would pass NODE_MASK_ALL if your intent was to interleave over everything you have access to, yes. Otherwise you can pass whatever you want access to and your interleaved nodemask becomes mpol_rebind_policy()'s newmask formal (the cpuset's new mems_allowed) AND'd with pol->passed_nodemask. - 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