linux-kernel - Re: [RFC] bitmap relative operator for mempolicy extensions

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: <47B4A3D7.7040007@sgi.com>
Date:	Thu, 14 Feb 2008 12:25:59 -0800
From:	Mike Travis <travis@....com>
To:	Christoph Lameter <clameter@....com>
CC:	Andi Kleen <ak@...e.de>, Paul Jackson <pj@....com>,
	David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>, Lee.Schermerhorn@...com,
	mel@....ul.ie, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	akpm@...ux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [RFC] bitmap relative operator for mempolicy extensions

Christoph Lameter wrote:
> On Thu, 14 Feb 2008, Andi Kleen wrote:
> 
>> You're saying the kernel should use these relative masks internally?
> 
> There is just some thoughts about this. Did not have time to look into the 
> details. Mike?

There are a few places where the entire cpumask is not needed.  For
example, in the area of core siblings on a node.  There's a limit
to how many cores/threads can be on a node and the full 4k cpumask
is not needed.  How this pertains to this new functionality I'm
not sure yet.

>  
>> That means it would be impossible to run workloads that use the complete
>> machine because you couldn't represent all nodes.
> 
> Not sure how they are addressing this.

--
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/