linux-kernel - Re: [BUGFIX][PATCH] oom-kill: fix NUMA consraint check with nodemask v3

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

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

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/