Re: [rfc][patch] Memory Binding API v0.3 2.5.41

[Matthew Dobson <colpatch@us.ibm.com>]

Alan Cox wrote:
> On Thu, 2002-10-10 at 11:06, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> 
>>>+/**
>>>+ * sys_mem_setbinding - set the memory binding of a process
>>>+ * @pid: pid of the process
>>>+ * @memblks: new bitmask of memory blocks
>>>+ * @behavior: new behavior
>>>+ */
>>>+asmlinkage long sys_mem_setbinding(pid_t pid, unsigned long memblks, 
>>>+				    unsigned int behavior)
>>>+{
>>
>>Do you really think exposing low level internals as memory layout / zone
>>split up to userspace is a good idea ? (and worth it given that the VM
>>already has a cpu locality preference?)
> 
> At least in the embedded world that level is a good idea. I'm not sure
> about the syscall interface. An "unsigned long" mask of blocks sounds
> like a good way to ensure a broken syscall in the future
Agreed.  This is a first pass (well 3rd, but the first two were long ago),
and I'll probably immitate the sys_sched_(s|g)etaffinity calls (even more
than I already have ;) and add a 'length' argument in the next itteration.

Cheers!

-Matt