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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0710261823210.30012@schroedinger.engr.sgi.com>
Date:	Fri, 26 Oct 2007 18:26:13 -0700 (PDT)
From:	Christoph Lameter <clameter@....com>
To:	Paul Jackson <pj@....com>
cc:	David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.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, Paul Jackson wrote:

> Choice B lets the task calculate its mempolicy mask as if it owned
> the entire system, and express whatever elaborate mempolicy placement
> it might need, when blessed with enough memory nodes to matter.
> The system would automatically scrunch that request down to whatever
> is the current size and placement of the cpuset holding that task.
> 
> Given a clean slate, I prefer Choice B.

Yes. We should default to Choice B. Add an option MPOL_MF_RELATIVE to 
enable that functionality? A new version of numactl can then enable
that by default for newer applications.
-
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/