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.4.64.0710261409420.18055@schroedinger.engr.sgi.com> Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2007 14:12:15 -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: > 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. We would need two fields in the policy structure 1. The specified nodemask (generally ignored) 2. The effective nodemask (specified & cpuset_mems_allowed) If we have these two then its easy to get a bit further by making the first nodemask a relative nodemask. The calculation of the effective nodemask changes somewhat but the logic is then applicable to MPOL_BIND as well. - 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