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
| ||
|
Date: Sat, 20 Jun 2009 09:24:30 +0200 From: Brice Goglin <Brice.Goglin@...ia.fr> To: Lee Schermerhorn <Lee.Schermerhorn@...com> CC: Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>, Stefan Lankes <lankes@...s.rwth-aachen.de>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-numa@...r.kernel.org, Boris Bierbaum <boris@...s.rwth-aachen.de>, 'Brice Goglin' <Brice.Goglin@...ia.fr> Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/4]: affinity-on-next-touch Lee Schermerhorn wrote: > My patches don't have per process enablement. Rather, I chose to use > per cpuset enablement. I view cpusets as sort of "numa control groups" > and thought this was an appropriate level at which to control this sort > of behavior--analogous to memory_spread_{page|slab}. That probably > needs to be discussed more widely, tho'. > Could you explain why you actually want to enable/disable migrate-on-fault on a cpuset (or process) basis? Why would an administrator want to disable it? Aren't the existing cpuset memory restriction abilities enough? Brice -- 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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists