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.1.00.0802151208290.19332@chino.kir.corp.google.com>
Date:	Fri, 15 Feb 2008 12:14:17 -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 Fri, 15 Feb 2008, Paul Jackson wrote:

> So that last line should be:
> 
> > 	1,3,5			4-10		5,7,9
> 

What about this case where one of the relative nodes wraps around to 
represent an already set node in the result?

	relative	mems_allowed	result
	1,3,6		4-8		5,7 or 5-7 ?

Neither result is immediately obvious to me logically: either your result 
has less weight than your relative nodemask (seems like a bad thing) or 
your relative nodemask really isn't all that relative to begin with (it's 
the same result as 1-3, 6-8, 11-13, etc).

Or is this just a less-than-desired side-effect of relative nodemasks that 
we're willing to live with given its other advantages?

		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/