Re: [patch 2/2] cpusets: add interleave_over_allowed option

On Mon, 29 Oct 2007, Lee Schermerhorn wrote:

> Note:  I don't [didn't] think I need to ref count the nodemasks
> associated with the mempolicies because they are allocated when the
> mempolicy is and destroyed when the policy is--not shared.  Just like
> the custom zonelist for bind policy, and we have no ref count there.
> I.e., they're protected by the mempol's ref.  However, now that you
> bring it up, I'm wondering about the effects of policy remapping, and
> whether we have the reference counting or indirect protection [mmap_sem,
> whatever] correct there in current code.  I'll have to take a look.

In that case we could just put the nodemask at the end of the mempolicy 
structure and then allocate the size needed? That way we would not need to 
deref an additional pointer?

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

---

• References:
  • [patch 1/2] cpusets: extract mmarray loading from update_nodemask
    • From: David Rientjes <[email protected]>
  • [patch 2/2] cpusets: add interleave_over_allowed option
    • From: David Rientjes <[email protected]>
  • Re: [patch 2/2] cpusets: add interleave_over_allowed option
    • From: Christoph Lameter <[email protected]>
  • Re: [patch 2/2] cpusets: add interleave_over_allowed option
    • From: David Rientjes <[email protected]>
  • Re: [patch 2/2] cpusets: add interleave_over_allowed option
    • From: Christoph Lameter <[email protected]>
  • Re: [patch 2/2] cpusets: add interleave_over_allowed option
    • From: Paul Jackson <[email protected]>
  • Re: [patch 2/2] cpusets: add interleave_over_allowed option
    • From: David Rientjes <[email protected]>
  • Re: [patch 2/2] cpusets: add interleave_over_allowed option
    • From: Lee Schermerhorn <[email protected]>
  • Re: [patch 2/2] cpusets: add interleave_over_allowed option
    • From: David Rientjes <[email protected]>
  • Re: [patch 2/2] cpusets: add interleave_over_allowed option
    • From: Paul Jackson <[email protected]>
  • Re: [patch 2/2] cpusets: add interleave_over_allowed option
    • From: David Rientjes <[email protected]>
  • Re: [patch 2/2] cpusets: add interleave_over_allowed option
    • From: Lee Schermerhorn <[email protected]>
  • Re: [patch 2/2] cpusets: add interleave_over_allowed option
    • From: Christoph Lameter <[email protected]>
  • Re: [patch 2/2] cpusets: add interleave_over_allowed option
    • From: Lee Schermerhorn <[email protected]>
  • Re: [patch 2/2] cpusets: add interleave_over_allowed option
    • From: Christoph Lameter <[email protected]>
  • Re: [patch 2/2] cpusets: add interleave_over_allowed option
    • From: Lee Schermerhorn <[email protected]>

• Prev by Date: Re: msync(2) bug(?), returns AOP_WRITEPAGE_ACTIVATE to userland
• Next by Date: Re: [PATCH] iommu-PMEN_REG boot up support
• Previous by thread: Re: [patch 2/2] cpusets: add interleave_over_allowed option
• Next by thread: Re: [patch 2/2] cpusets: add interleave_over_allowed option
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread

[Index of Archives]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Photo]     [Stuff]     [Gimp]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Video 4 Linux]     [Linux for the blind]     [Linux Resources]