From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 28BE0C4332F for ; Tue, 11 Oct 2022 15:24:36 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S231426AbiJKPYf (ORCPT ); Tue, 11 Oct 2022 11:24:35 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:60330 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S230254AbiJKPYQ (ORCPT ); Tue, 11 Oct 2022 11:24:16 -0400 Received: from smtp-out2.suse.de (smtp-out2.suse.de [IPv6:2001:67c:2178:6::1d]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5269FD57C0; Tue, 11 Oct 2022 08:15:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: from imap2.suse-dmz.suse.de (imap2.suse-dmz.suse.de [192.168.254.74]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature ECDSA (P-521) server-digest SHA512) (No client certificate requested) by smtp-out2.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0D84A20121; Tue, 11 Oct 2022 15:00:16 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=suse.com; s=susede1; t=1665500416; h=from:from:reply-to:date:date:message-id:message-id:to:to:cc:cc: mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=RO0FO74ctDC9cFYZEDLiw7BGFiXGuRuOlnU9ALUUx4Q=; b=UdX58LtbOBVnHrZvPxzq+OnrT4JBCxyKX7In8GNplrTy13057zqHjS17NhVXO+X6uvxB+F yWFaRqu7LeV7MI2FHa89kpRAGRakFbDpECYhA7UBIDylrvfmtmTE9wEJI6mhsWJfIxmD+O f+rcsieq2uSRQGfJSh//Jbj6k19Qu2A= Received: from imap2.suse-dmz.suse.de (imap2.suse-dmz.suse.de [192.168.254.74]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature ECDSA (P-521) server-digest SHA512) (No client certificate requested) by imap2.suse-dmz.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C78AC139ED; Tue, 11 Oct 2022 15:00:15 +0000 (UTC) Received: from dovecot-director2.suse.de ([192.168.254.65]) by imap2.suse-dmz.suse.de with ESMTPSA id fuh0LP+ERWNxSQAAMHmgww (envelope-from ); Tue, 11 Oct 2022 15:00:15 +0000 Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2022 17:00:14 +0200 From: Michal Hocko To: Frank van der Linden Cc: Zhongkun He , corbet@lwn.net, akpm@linux-foundation.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-api@vger.kernel.org, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, wuyun.abel@bytedance.com Subject: Re: [RFC] mm: add new syscall pidfd_set_mempolicy() Message-ID: References: <20221010094842.4123037-1-hezhongkun.hzk@bytedance.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-doc@vger.kernel.org On Mon 10-10-22 09:22:13, Frank van der Linden wrote: > For consistency with process_madvise(), I would suggest calling it > process_set_mempolicy. This operation has per-thread rather than per-process semantic so I do not think your proposed naming is better. > Other than that, this makes sense. To complete > the set, perhaps a process_mbind() should be added as well. What do > you think? Is there any real usecase for this interface? How is the caller supposed to make per-range decisions without a very involved coordination with the target process? -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs