Re: [PATCH 0/6] mempolicy memory corruption fixlet

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 02:42:42PM -0500, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> On Wed, 30 May 2012, Andi Kleen wrote:
> > On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 01:50:02PM -0500, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> > > On Wed, 30 May 2012, Andi Kleen wrote:
> > >
> > > > I always regretted that cpusets were no done with custom node lists.
> > > > That would have been much cleaner and also likely faster than what we have.
> > >
> > > Could shared memory policies ignore cpuset constraints?
> >
> > Only if noone uses cpusets as a "security" mechanism, just for a "soft policy"
> > Even with soft policy you could well break someone's setup.
> Well at least lets exempt shared memory from memory migration and memory
> policy updates. That seems to be causing many of these issues.

Migration on the page level is needed for the memory error handling.

Updates: you mean not allowing to set the policy when there are already
multiple mappers? I could see that causing some unexpected behaviour. Presumably
a standard database will only set it at the beginning, but I don't know
if that would work for all users.

ak@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx -- Speaking for myself only.

To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx.  For more info on Linux MM,
see: .
Fight unfair telecom internet charges in Canada: sign
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>

[Site Home]     [Linux ARM Kernel]     [Linux ARM]     [Linux Omap]     [Fedora ARM]     [IETF Annouce]     [Security]     [Bugtraq]     [Linux]     [Linux OMAP]     [Linux MIPS]     [ECOS]     [Tools]     [DDR & Rambus]     [Asterisk Internet PBX]     [Linux API]     [Monitors]

Add to Google Google PageRank Checking tool