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

[Andi Kleen]

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.

-Andi
-- 
ak@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx -- Speaking for myself only.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/