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.0.9999.0710261436140.16966@chino.kir.corp.google.com> Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2007 14:39:42 -0700 (PDT) From: David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com> To: Lee Schermerhorn <Lee.Schermerhorn@...com> cc: Paul Jackson <pj@....com>, clameter@....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: > So, you pass the subset, you don't set the flag to indicate you want > interleaving over all available. You must be thinking of some other use > for saving the subset mask that I'm not seeing here. Maybe restoring to > the exact nodes requested if they're taken away and then re-added to the > cpuset? > Paul's motivation for saving the passed nodemask to set_mempolicy() is so that the _intent_ of the application is never lost. That's the biggest advantage that this method has and that I totally agree with. So whenever the mems_allowed of a cpuset changes, the MPOL_INTERLEAVE nodemask of all attached tasks becomes their intent (pol->passed_nodemask) AND'd with the new mems_allowed. That can be done on mpol_rebind_policy() and shouldn't be an extensive change. So MPOL_INTERLEAVE, and possibly other, mempolicies will always try to accomodate the intent of the application but only as far as the task's cpuset restriction allows them. David - 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