linux-kernel - Re: [RFC] cpuset relative memory policies

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: <alpine.DEB.0.9999.0711011202190.21823@chino.kir.corp.google.com>
Date:	Thu, 1 Nov 2007 12:03:38 -0700 (PDT)
From:	David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>
To:	Paul Jackson <pj@....com>
cc:	Christoph Lameter <clameter@....com>, Lee.Schermerhorn@...com,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, ak@...e.de
Subject: Re: [RFC] cpuset relative memory policies - second choice

On Thu, 1 Nov 2007, Paul Jackson wrote:

> We were discussing libnuma here, not glibc.  The system call wrappers
> are in glibc.  System call wrappers should not be setting optional
> flags.  They should just make the system call -- do whatever magic it
> takes to get the provided arguments into the right registers or other
> conventionally determined places, and invoke the necessary machine
> instruction to trap into the kernel.
> 

So there is no problem with allowing modal flags to be passed to 
set_mempolicy() because glibc will respect the mode actual and pass it 
right along to the kernel.  That gives the power to the programmer to 
specify whether he or she, based on the updated documentation, wants the 
nodemask to be interpreted in terms of the system or cpuset.

		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/