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.0.9999.0711010055090.2973@chino.kir.corp.google.com>
Date:	Thu, 1 Nov 2007 01:03:18 -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 Wed, 31 Oct 2007, Paul Jackson wrote:

>     David R - is your use of the mbind and *_mempolicy system calls
>     via libnuma, or direct system calls?
> 

I hope to be able to use libnuma exclusively once your fix is in place so 
that the interleaving behaves the way we want while attached to a changing 
cpuset.  (And it would be preferable to not have to use a special version 
of it that is hacked to support the fix.)  It's just simpler to use as an 
interface, but I wouldn't consider using the system calls directly an 
error.

		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/