linux-kernel - Re: [patch 5/6] mempolicy: add MPOL_F_RELATIVE

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <20080226114417.c8948b61.pj@sgi.com>
Date:	Tue, 26 Feb 2008 11:44:17 -0600
From:	Paul Jackson <pj@....com>
To:	David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>
Cc:	akpm@...ux-foundation.org, clameter@....com,
	Lee.Schermerhorn@...com, ak@...e.de, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [patch 5/6] mempolicy: add MPOL_F_RELATIVE_NODES flag

David,

Perhaps I missed it, but could you elaborate on what sort of testing
these patches for MPOL_F_RELATIVE_NODES and MPOL_F_STATIC_NODES have
received?

The main reason I didn't push my version of these patches in December
was I figured it would take a week or three of obsessive-compulsive
testing to verify that we didn't break various corner cases of the
mbind/mempolicy system call interface.

In particular, do we know that Oracle works with this?  At least in
years past, when Andi was the primary developer here, he had some
good and detailed awareness of what it took to keep Oracle happy
with this NUMA memory policy apparatus.  I don't know if we still
have that awareness.

-- 
                  I won't rest till it's the best ...
                  Programmer, Linux Scalability
                  Paul Jackson <pj@....com> 1.940.382.4214
--
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/