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

Alan Cox
2002-10-10T11:06:28Z

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