Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1757407Ab2E3Se1 (ORCPT ); Wed, 30 May 2012 14:34:27 -0400 Received: from smtp105.prem.mail.ac4.yahoo.com ([76.13.13.44]:43909 "HELO smtp105.prem.mail.ac4.yahoo.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S1753573Ab2E3SeZ (ORCPT ); Wed, 30 May 2012 14:34:25 -0400 X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-3 X-YMail-OSG: 8W7rieUVM1mMvJHnJnzjy1TMFhCTKms6n.NoI8ZZQIFhSWQ bIu3dt8fxJESTcI4PvAg8bdlktsRwQBuT_HLwO35zQ2TIHTMadExLtOhWIAu 7Q5xKnlLyL1qSsDeS0zbnw4oA7cFF7MspeC1ndtW1BpdQZemjn3dSIOnr5eX OtTJ.8iu3gsBSblWjYhm8dDSwqZwnFqQ2.EA8BCdqNdsixfJZFR9IfX5AtXu GOCGViFieZlJnNZOB5M2DtXtLALw.mBWJz84pV8iRWiH5bYneDHJTef4gTJZ QU0KfPjeqgbJUsMjP.6HBsbANft45xpGVYuxdyb8XgODDJsyKFS96WCqiH1l 4QKaZfqz2Nav9isgzdza7w38E505lBtadBS.EMmNi3AH4u.LNjGvou_fFfCE R X-Yahoo-SMTP: _Dag8S.swBC1p4FJKLCXbs8NQzyse1SYSgnAbY0- Date: Wed, 30 May 2012 13:34:21 -0500 (CDT) From: Christoph Lameter X-X-Sender: cl@router.home To: Linus Torvalds cc: 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 , andi@firstfloor.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/6] mempolicy memory corruption fixlet In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: <1338368529-21784-1-git-send-email-kosaki.motohiro@gmail.com> User-Agent: Alpine 2.00 (DEB 1167 2008-08-23) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1161 Lines: 28 On Wed, 30 May 2012, Linus Torvalds wrote: > On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 2:02 AM, wrote: > > > > So, I think we should reconsider about shared mempolicy completely. > > Quite frankly, I'd prefer that approach. The code is subtle and > horribly bug-fraught, and I absolutely detest the way it looks too. > Reading your patches was actually somewhat painful. It is so bad mostly because the integration of shared memory policies with cpusets is not really working. Using either in isolation is ok especially shared mempolicies do not play well with cpusets. > If we could just remove the support for it entirely, that would be > *much* preferable to continue working with this code. Well shm support needs memory policies to spread data across nodes etc. AFAICT support was put in due to requirements to support large database vendors (oracle). Andi? Its not going to be easy to remove. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/