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 PHC | |
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2009 19:27:40 -0800 (PST) From: David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com> To: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com> cc: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>, Daisuke Nishimura <nishimura@....nes.nec.co.jp>, linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux-foundation.org> Subject: Re: [BUGFIX][PATCH] oom-kill: fix NUMA consraint check with nodemask v3 On Wed, 11 Nov 2009, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote: > Linux doesn't support 1K nodes. (and only SGI huge machine use 512 nodes) > I know for a fact that it does on x86 if you adjust CONFIG_NODES_SHIFT, I've booted kernels all the way back to 2.6.18 with 1K nodes. > At least, NODEMASK_ALLOC should make more cleaner interface. current one > and struct nodemask_scratch are pretty ugly. > I agree, I haven't been a fan of nodemask_scratch because I think its use case is pretty limited, but I do advocate using NODEMASK_ALLOC() when deep in the stack. We've made sure that most of the mempolicy code does that where manipulating nodemasks is common in -mm. -- 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