linux-kernel - Re: [2.6.24-rc8-mm1][regression?] numactl --interleave=all doesn't works on memoryless node.

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: <1202249070.5332.58.camel@localhost>
Date:	Tue, 05 Feb 2008 17:04:30 -0500
From:	Lee Schermerhorn <Lee.Schermerhorn@...com>
To:	Paul Jackson <pj@....com>
Cc:	David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
	kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com, andi@...stfloor.org,
	linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	akpm@...ux-foundation.org, clameter@....com, mel@....ul.ie
Subject: Re: [2.6.24-rc8-mm1][regression?] numactl --interleave=all doesn't
	works on memoryless node.

On Tue, 2008-02-05 at 15:33 -0600, Paul Jackson wrote:
> David wrote:
> > It would be disappointing to see a lot of work done to fix
> 
> The suggested patch of KOSAKI Motohiro didn't look like a lot of work to me.
> 
> I continue to prefer not to hijack this thread for that other discussion.
> Just presenting your position and calling it "simple" is misleading.
> The discussion so far has involved over a hundred messages over months,
> and certainly your position, nor mine for that matter, obtained concensus.
> 
> How does the patch of KOSAKI Motohiro, earlier in this thread, look to you?
> 

Paul,

It wasn't clear to me whether Kosaki-san's patch required a modified
numactl/libnuma or not.   I think so, because that patch doesn't change
the error return in contextualize_policy() and in mpol_check_policy().
My modified numactl/libnuma avoids this by only passing in allowed mems
fetch via get_mempolicy() with the new MEMS_ALLOWED flags.

The patch I just posted doesn't depend on the numactl changes and seems
quite minimal to me.  I think it cleans up the differences between
set_mempolicy() and mbind(), as well.  However, some may take exception
to the change in behavior--silently ignoring dis-allowed nodes in
set_mempolicy().

Also, your cpuset/mempolicy work will probably need to undo the
unconditional masking in contextualize_policy() and/or save the original
node mask somewhere...

Lee

--
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/