linux-kernel - Re: [RFC] autonuma: Migrate on fault among multiple bound nodes

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: <d9064a334a680ac9eee0ff62c66863637099e93b.camel@redhat.com>
Date:   Wed, 16 Sep 2020 11:35:16 -0400
From:   Qian Cai <cai@...hat.com>
To:     David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>,
        Huang Ying <ying.huang@...el.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:     linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>,
        Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
        "Matthew Wilcox (Oracle)" <willy@...radead.org>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>,
        Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>,
        Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>,
        David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC] autonuma: Migrate on fault among multiple bound nodes

On Wed, 2020-09-16 at 17:29 +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> On 16.09.20 15:39, Qian Cai wrote:
> > On Wed, 2020-09-16 at 08:59 +0800, Huang Ying wrote:
> > >  static int apply_policy_zone(struct mempolicy *policy, enum zone_type
> > > zone)
> > > @@ -2474,11 +2481,13 @@ int mpol_misplaced(struct page *page, struct
> > > vm_area_struct *vma, unsigned long
> > >  	int thisnid = cpu_to_node(thiscpu);
> > >  	int polnid = NUMA_NO_NODE;
> > >  	int ret = -1;
> > > +	bool moron;
> > 
> > Are you really going to use that name those days?
> > 
> > 
> 
> include/uapi/linux/mempolicy.h:#define MPOL_F_MORON     (1 << 4) /*
> Migrate On protnone Reference On Node */
> 
> Not commenting the decision for that name. It's uapi ... and naming the
> variable like the uapi flag seems to be a sane thing to do ... hmmm ...

One can argue there is no need to enforce that past decision today. Also, it
could be total different thing with a prefix and all capital letters (correct
for abbreviation). Anyway, not going to insist on it at all.