linux-kernel - Re: [patch 2/2] cpusets: add interleave_over

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

Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

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/