linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH v3 0/8] mm,numa: N_PRIVATE node isolation for device-managed memory

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Message-ID: <e635e534-5aa6-485a-bd5c-7a0bc69f14f2@nvidia.com>
Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2026 08:57:49 +1100
From: Balbir Singh <balbirs@...dia.com>
To: dan.j.williams@...el.com, Yury Norov <ynorov@...dia.com>,
 Gregory Price <gourry@...rry.net>
Cc: linux-mm@...ck.org, cgroups@...r.kernel.org, linux-cxl@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, kernel-team@...a.com, longman@...hat.com,
 tj@...nel.org, hannes@...xchg.org, mkoutny@...e.com, corbet@....net,
 gregkh@...uxfoundation.org, rafael@...nel.org, dakr@...nel.org,
 dave@...olabs.net, jonathan.cameron@...wei.com, dave.jiang@...el.com,
 alison.schofield@...el.com, vishal.l.verma@...el.com, ira.weiny@...el.com,
 akpm@...ux-foundation.org, vbabka@...e.cz, surenb@...gle.com,
 mhocko@...e.com, jackmanb@...gle.com, ziy@...dia.com, david@...nel.org,
 lorenzo.stoakes@...cle.com, Liam.Howlett@...cle.com, rppt@...nel.org,
 axelrasmussen@...gle.com, yuanchu@...gle.com, weixugc@...gle.com,
 yury.norov@...il.com, linux@...musvillemoes.dk, rientjes@...gle.com,
 shakeel.butt@...ux.dev, chrisl@...nel.org, kasong@...cent.com,
 shikemeng@...weicloud.com, nphamcs@...il.com, bhe@...hat.com,
 baohua@...nel.org, yosry.ahmed@...ux.dev, chengming.zhou@...ux.dev,
 roman.gushchin@...ux.dev, muchun.song@...ux.dev, osalvador@...e.de,
 matthew.brost@...el.com, joshua.hahnjy@...il.com, rakie.kim@...com,
 byungchul@...com, ying.huang@...ux.alibaba.com, apopple@...dia.com,
 cl@...two.org, harry.yoo@...cle.com, zhengqi.arch@...edance.com
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v3 0/8] mm,numa: N_PRIVATE node isolation for
 device-managed memory

On 1/13/26 07:24, dan.j.williams@...el.com wrote:
> Yury Norov wrote:
> [..]
>>> Dan Williams convinced me to go with N_PRIVATE, but this is really a
>>> bikeshed topic
>>
>> No it's not. To me (OK, an almost random reader in this discussion),
>> N_PRIVATE is a pretty confusing name. It doesn't answer the question:
>> private what? N_PRIVATE_MEMORY is better in that department, isn't?
>>
>> But taking into account isolcpus, maybe N_ISOLMEM?
>>
>>> - we could call it N_BOBERT until we find consensus.
>>
>> Please give it the right name well describing the scope and purpose of
>> the new restriction policy before moving forward.
> 
> ...this is the definition of a bikeshed discussion, and bikeshed's are
> important for building consensus. The argument for N_PRIVATE is with
> respect to looking at this from the perspective of the other node_states
> that do not have the _MEMORY designation particularly _ONLINE and the
> fact that the other _MEMORY states implied zone implications whereas
> N_PRIVATE can span zones.
> 
> I agree with Gregory the name does not matter as much as the
> documentation explaining what the name means. I am ok if others do not
> sign onto the rationale for why not include _MEMORY, but lets capture
> something that tries to clarify that this is a unique node state that
> can have "all of the above" memory types relative to the existing
> _MEMORY states.
> 

To me, N_ is a common prefix, we do have N_HIGH_MEMORY, N_NORMAL_MEMORY.
N_PRIVATE does not tell me if it's CPU or memory related.

Balbir