Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 10 Oct 2002 12:06:02 -0700 | From | Matthew Dobson <> | Subject | Re: [rfc][patch] Memory Binding API v0.3 2.5.41 |
| |
Alan Cox wrote: > 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 Agreed. This is a first pass (well 3rd, but the first two were long ago), and I'll probably immitate the sys_sched_(s|g)etaffinity calls (even more than I already have ;) and add a 'length' argument in the next itteration.
Cheers!
-Matt
- 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/
| |