[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.20.1711070851560.18776@nuc-kabylake>
Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2017 08:54:46 -0600 (CST)
From: Christopher Lameter <cl@...ux.com>
To: Yisheng Xie <xieyisheng1@...wei.com>
cc: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
mhocko@...e.com, mingo@...nel.org, rientjes@...gle.com,
n-horiguchi@...jp.nec.com, salls@...ucsb.edu, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, tanxiaojun@...wei.com,
linux-api@...r.kernel.org, Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC v2 4/4] mm/mempolicy: add nodes_empty check in
SYSC_migrate_pages
On Tue, 7 Nov 2017, Yisheng Xie wrote:
> On 2017/11/6 23:29, Christopher Lameter wrote:
> > On Mon, 6 Nov 2017, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> >
> >> I'm not sure what exactly is the EPERM intention. Should really the
> >> capability of THIS process override the cpuset restriction of the TARGET
> >> process? Maybe yes. Then, does "insufficient privilege (CAP_SYS_NICE) to
> >
> > CAP_SYS_NICE never overrides cpuset restrictions. The cap can be used to
> > migrate pages that are *also* mapped by other processes (and thus move
> > pages of another process which may have different cpu set restrictions!).
>
> So you means the specified nodes should be a subset of target cpu set, right?
The specified nodes need to be part of the *current* cpu set.
Migrate pages moves the pages of a single process there is no TARGET
process.
Thus thehe *target* nodes need to be a subset of the current cpu set.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists