From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from psmtp.com (na3sys010amx104.postini.com [74.125.245.104]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 5C24F6B005C for ; Wed, 30 May 2012 14:50:07 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 30 May 2012 13:50:02 -0500 (CDT) From: Christoph Lameter Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/6] mempolicy memory corruption fixlet In-Reply-To: <20120530184638.GU27374@one.firstfloor.org> Message-ID: References: <1338368529-21784-1-git-send-email-kosaki.motohiro@gmail.com> <20120530184638.GU27374@one.firstfloor.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: Andi Kleen Cc: Linus Torvalds , 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 On Wed, 30 May 2012, Andi Kleen wrote: > I always regretted that cpusets were no done with custom node lists. > That would have been much cleaner and also likely faster than what we have. Could shared memory policies ignore cpuset constraints? -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Fight unfair telecom internet charges in Canada: sign http://stopthemeter.ca/ Don't email: email@kvack.org