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, 14 Oct 2014 11:31:05 -0400
From:	Rik van Riel <>
To:	Peter Zijlstra <>,
	"Kirill A. Shutemov" <>
CC:	Alex Thorlton <>,,
	Andrew Morton <>,
	Mel Gorman <>, Ingo Molnar <>,
	"Kirill A. Shutemov" <>,
	Hugh Dickins <>, Bob Liu <>,
	Johannes Weiner <>,
Subject: Re: [BUG] mm, thp: khugepaged can't allocate on requested node when
 confined to a cpuset

On 10/14/2014 10:54 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 02:48:28PM +0300, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
>> Why whould you want to pin khugpeaged? Is there a valid use-case?
>> Looks like userspace shoots to its leg.
> Its just bad design to put so much work in another context. But the
> use-case is isolating other cpus.
>> Is there a reason why we should respect cpuset limitation for kernel
>> threads?
> Yes, because we want to allow isolating CPUs from 'random' activity.
>> Should we bypass cpuset for PF_KTHREAD completely?
> No. That'll break stuff.

Agreed on the above.

I suspect the sane thing to do is allow a cpuset
limited task to still allocate pages elsewhere,
if it explicitly asks for it.

Ask for something potentially stupid? Get it :)

In many of the cases where something asks for memory
in a specific location, it has a good reason to do
so, and there's no reason to deny it.
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

Powered by blists - more mailing lists