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]

Date:	Sat, 27 Oct 2007 12:16:12 -0700 (PDT)
From:	David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>
To:	Lee Schermerhorn <Lee.Schermerhorn@...com>
cc:	Christoph Lameter <clameter@....com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Andi Kleen <ak@...e.de>, Paul Jackson <pj@....com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [patch 2/2] cpusets: add interleave_over_allowed option

On Fri, 26 Oct 2007, David Rientjes wrote:

> Hacking and requiring an updated version of libnuma to allow empty 
> nodemasks to be passed is a poor solution; if mempolicy's are supposed to 
> be independent from cpusets, then what semantics does an empty nodemask 
> actually imply when using MPOL_INTERLEAVE?  To me, it means the entire 
> set_mempolicy() should be a no-op, and that's exactly how mainline 
> currently treats it _as_well_ as libnuma.  So justifying this change in 
> the man page is respectible, but passing an empty nodemask just doesn't 
> make sense.
> 

Another reason that passing an empty nodemask to set_mempolicy() doesn't 
make sense is that libnuma uses numa_set_interleave_mask(&numa_no_nodes)
to disable interleaving completely.

		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/