linux-kernel - Re: [patch 3/4] mempolicy: add MPOL_F_STATIC

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.1.00.0802141142160.17096@chino.kir.corp.google.com>
Date:	Thu, 14 Feb 2008 11:45:14 -0800 (PST)
From:	David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>
To:	Paul Jackson <pj@....com>
cc:	Lee.Schermerhorn@...com, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
	clameter@....com, ak@...e.de, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	mel@....ul.ie
Subject: Re: [patch 3/4] mempolicy: add MPOL_F_STATIC_NODES flag

On Thu, 14 Feb 2008, Paul Jackson wrote:

> No and yes.  The manner in which too many nodes (as requested in a
> RELATIVE mask) are folded into too small a cpuset is not actually
> that critical, so long as it doesn't come up empty.  However, what
> I'll be recommending, in a follow-up patch, will be folding the
> larger set into the smaller one modulo the size of the smaller one.
> 

So basically the "relative" nodemask that is passed with 
MPOL_F_RELATIVE_NODES is wrapped around the allowed nodes?

	relative nodemask	mems_allowed	result
	1,3,5			4		4
	1,3,5			4-6		4-6
	1,3,5			4-8		4-5,7
	1,3,5			4-10		4,6,8

Is that correct?

		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/