[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAHGf_=ooVunBpSdBRCnO1uOoswqxcSy7Xf8xVcgEUGA2fXdcTA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 30 May 2012 15:54:06 -0400
From: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...il.com>
To: Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>
Cc: Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...gle.com>, Dave Jones <davej@...hat.com>,
Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>, stable@...r.kernel.org,
hughd@...gle.com, sivanich@....com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/6] mempolicy memory corruption fixlet
On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 3:42 PM, Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 30 May 2012, Andi Kleen wrote:
>
>> On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 01:50:02PM -0500, Christoph Lameter wrote:
>> > On Wed, 30 May 2012, Andi Kleen wrote:
>> >
>> > > I always regretted that cpusets were no done with custom node lists.
>> > > That would have been much cleaner and also likely faster than what we have.
>> >
>> > Could shared memory policies ignore cpuset constraints?
>>
>> Only if noone uses cpusets as a "security" mechanism, just for a "soft policy"
>> Even with soft policy you could well break someone's setup.
>
> Well at least lets exempt shared memory from memory migration and memory
> policy updates. That seems to be causing many of these issues.
Yes, that's right direction, I think. Currently, shmem_set_policy() can't handle
nonlinear mapping. vma -> file offset transration is not so easy work
and I doubt
we should do.
--
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