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

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

Message-ID: <aWWGZVsY84D7YNu1@gourry-fedora-PF4VCD3F>
Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2026 18:40:21 -0500
From: Gregory Price <gourry@...rry.net>
To: Balbir Singh <balbirs@...dia.com>
Cc: dan.j.williams@...el.com, Yury Norov <ynorov@...dia.com>,
	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 Tue, Jan 13, 2026 at 09:54:32AM +1100, Balbir Singh wrote:
> On 1/13/26 08:10, dan.j.williams@...el.com wrote:
> > Balbir Singh wrote:
> > [..]
> >>> 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.
> > 
> > True that confusion about whether N_PRIVATE can apply to CPUs is there.
> > How about split the difference and call this:
> > 
> >     N_MEM_PRIVATE
> > 
> > To make it both distinct from _MEMORY and _HIGH_MEMORY which describe
> > ZONE limitations and distinct from N_CPU.
> 
> I'd be open to that name, how about N_MEMORY_PRIVATE? So then N_MEMORY
> becomes (N_MEMORY_PUBLIC by default)
>

N_MEMORY_PUBLIC is forcing everyone else to change for the sake a new
feature, better to keep it N_MEM[ORY]_PRIVATE if anything

~Gregory