Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [rfc][patch] Memory Binding API v0.3 2.5.41 | From | Alan Cox <> | Date | 10 Oct 2002 12:22:51 +0100 |
| |
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
- 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/
| |