linux-kernel - Re: Rewording language in mbind(2) to "threads" not "processes"

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

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

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

Message-ID: <f3172238-1601-22c8-e840-b012927866ac@gmail.com>
Date:   Sat, 22 Oct 2016 12:08:51 +0200
From:   "Michael Kerrisk (man-pages)" <mtk.manpages@...il.com>
To:     Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>
Cc:     mtk.manpages@...il.com,
        Piotr Kwapulinski <kwapulinski.piotr@...il.com>,
        mhocko@...nel.org, mgorman@...hsingularity.net,
        a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl, riel@...hat.com, linux-mm@...ck.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-man@...r.kernel.org,
        Brice Goglin <Brice.Goglin@...ia.fr>
Subject: Re: Rewording language in mbind(2) to "threads" not "processes"

On 10/13/2016 08:16 PM, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> On Thu, 13 Oct 2016, Michael Kerrisk (man-pages) wrote:
> 
>> @@ -100,7 +100,10 @@ If, however, the shared memory region was created with the
>>  .B SHM_HUGETLB
>>  flag,
>>  the huge pages will be allocated according to the policy specified
>> -only if the page allocation is caused by the process that calls
>> +only if the page allocation is caused by the thread that calls
>> +.\"
>> +.\" ??? Is it correct to change "process" to "thread" in the preceding line?
> 
> No leave it as process. Pages get one map refcount per page table
> that references them (meaning a process). More than one map refcount means
> that multiple processes have mapped the page.
> 
>> @@ -300,7 +303,10 @@ is specified in
>>  .IR flags ,
>>  then the kernel will attempt to move all the existing pages
>>  in the memory range so that they follow the policy.
>> -Pages that are shared with other processes will not be moved.
>> +Pages that are shared with other threads will not be moved.
>> +.\"
>> +.\" ??? Is it correct to change "processes" to "threads" in the preceding line?
>> +.\"
> 
> Leave it. Same as before.
> 
>>  If
>>  then the kernel will attempt to move all existing pages in the memory range
>> -regardless of whether other processes use the pages.
>> -The calling process must be privileged
>> +regardless of whether other threads use the pages.
>> +.\"
>> +.\" ??? Is it correct to change "processes" to "threads" in the preceding line?
>> +.\"
> 
> Leave as process.

Thanks. I've reverted these changes.

Cheers,

Michael


-- 
Michael Kerrisk
Linux man-pages maintainer; http://www.kernel.org/doc/man-pages/
Linux/UNIX System Programming Training: http://man7.org/training/