Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Date:   Tue, 11 Oct 2022 17:00:14 +0200
From:   Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>
To:     Frank van der Linden <fvdl@google.com>
Cc:     Zhongkun He <hezhongkun.hzk@bytedance.com>, 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: <Y0WE/lEiNvl2ljo1@dhcp22.suse.cz>
References: <20221010094842.4123037-1-hezhongkun.hzk@bytedance.com>
 <CAPTztWYTGOb8ZQzfgThqJn+fyi4ZB8=JQQZi5_rUoDhdftKtvg@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAPTztWYTGOb8ZQzfgThqJn+fyi4ZB8=JQQZi5_rUoDhdftKtvg@mail.gmail.com>
Precedence: bulk

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