From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from psmtp.com (na3sys010amx174.postini.com [74.125.245.174]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 835F96B005C for ; Wed, 30 May 2012 15:32:36 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 30 May 2012 21:32:34 +0200 From: Andi Kleen Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/6] mempolicy memory corruption fixlet Message-ID: <20120530193234.GV27374@one.firstfloor.org> References: <1338368529-21784-1-git-send-email-kosaki.motohiro@gmail.com> <20120530184638.GU27374@one.firstfloor.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: Christoph Lameter Cc: Andi Kleen , Linus Torvalds , kosaki.motohiro@gmail.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, Andrew Morton , Dave Jones , Mel Gorman , stable@vger.kernel.org, hughd@google.com, sivanich@sgi.com, KOSAKI Motohiro 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. Maybe there are some better ways to do that now with memcg, not fully sure. -Andi -- ak@linux.intel.com -- Speaking for myself only. -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Fight unfair telecom internet charges in Canada: sign http://stopthemeter.ca/ Don't email: email@kvack.org