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.4.64.0710261436070.18899@schroedinger.engr.sgi.com> Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2007 14:37:41 -0700 (PDT) From: Christoph Lameter <clameter@....com> To: Lee Schermerhorn <Lee.Schermerhorn@...com> cc: David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>, Paul Jackson <pj@....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, Lee Schermerhorn wrote: > > > Now, if we could replace the 'cpuset_mems_allowed' nodemask with a > > > pointer to something stable, it might be a win. > > > > The memory policies are already shared and have refcounters for that > > purpose. > > I must have missed that in the code I'm reading :) What is the benefit of having pointers to nodemasks? We likely would need to have refcounts in those nodemasks too? So we duplicate a lot of the characteristics of memory policies? - 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