Re: Rewording language in mbind(2) to "threads" not "processes"

On 10/25/2016 05:40 PM, Piotr Kwapulinski wrote: > Hi Michael, > > I spent a couple of hours trying to review your patch. Unfortunately > nowadays I spend no more than an hour per day for whole my linux > kernel activity. It may take longer time for me to review it. > This patch touches some

Re: Rewording language in mbind(2) to "threads" not "processes"

On 10/25/2016 05:40 PM, Piotr Kwapulinski wrote: > Hi Michael, > > I spent a couple of hours trying to review your patch. Unfortunately > nowadays I spend no more than an hour per day for whole my linux > kernel activity. It may take longer time for me to review it. > This patch touches some

Re: Rewording language in mbind(2) to "threads" not "processes"

Hi Michael, I spent a couple of hours trying to review your patch. Unfortunately nowadays I spend no more than an hour per day for whole my linux kernel activity. It may take longer time for me to review it. This patch touches some areas of the kernel I'm still not an expert of (though I'm

Re: Rewording language in mbind(2) to "threads" not "processes"

Hi Michael, I spent a couple of hours trying to review your patch. Unfortunately nowadays I spend no more than an hour per day for whole my linux kernel activity. It may take longer time for me to review it. This patch touches some areas of the kernel I'm still not an expert of (though I'm

Re: Rewording language in mbind(2) to "threads" not "processes"

On 10/21/2016 03:44 PM, Christoph Lameter wrote: > On Fri, 21 Oct 2016, Michael Kerrisk (man-pages) wrote: > >> Did you have any thoughts on my follow-on question below? > > There was only one AFAICT? > >>> Thanks. So, are all the other cases where I changed "process" to >>> "thread" okay then?

Re: Rewording language in mbind(2) to "threads" not "processes"

On 10/21/2016 03:44 PM, Christoph Lameter wrote: > On Fri, 21 Oct 2016, Michael Kerrisk (man-pages) wrote: > >> Did you have any thoughts on my follow-on question below? > > There was only one AFAICT? > >>> Thanks. So, are all the other cases where I changed "process" to >>> "thread" okay then?

Re: Rewording language in mbind(2) to "threads" not "processes"

On 10/13/2016 08:16 PM, Christoph Lameter wrote: > On Thu, 13 Oct 2016, Michael Kerrisk (man-pages) wrote: > >> @@ -100,7 +100,10 @@ If, however, the shared memory region was created with >> the >> .B SHM_HUGETLB >> flag, >> the huge pages will be allocated according to the policy specified

Re: Rewording language in mbind(2) to "threads" not "processes"

On 10/13/2016 08:16 PM, Christoph Lameter wrote: > On Thu, 13 Oct 2016, Michael Kerrisk (man-pages) wrote: > >> @@ -100,7 +100,10 @@ If, however, the shared memory region was created with >> the >> .B SHM_HUGETLB >> flag, >> the huge pages will be allocated according to the policy specified

Re: Rewording language in mbind(2) to "threads" not "processes"

On Fri, 21 Oct 2016, Michael Kerrisk (man-pages) wrote: > Did you have any thoughts on my follow-on question below? There was only one AFAICT? > > Thanks. So, are all the other cases where I changed "process" to > > "thread" okay then? >From what I see yes.

Re: Rewording language in mbind(2) to "threads" not "processes"

On Fri, 21 Oct 2016, Michael Kerrisk (man-pages) wrote: > Did you have any thoughts on my follow-on question below? There was only one AFAICT? > > Thanks. So, are all the other cases where I changed "process" to > > "thread" okay then? >From what I see yes.

Re: Rewording language in mbind(2) to "threads" not "processes"

Hi Christoph, Did you have any thoughts on my follow-on question below? Cheers, Michael On 10/14/2016 12:09 PM, Michael Kerrisk (man-pages) wrote: > Hi Christoph, > > On 13 October 2016 at 20:16, Christoph Lameter wrote: >> On Thu, 13 Oct 2016, Michael Kerrisk (man-pages)

Re: Rewording language in mbind(2) to "threads" not "processes"

Hi Christoph, Did you have any thoughts on my follow-on question below? Cheers, Michael On 10/14/2016 12:09 PM, Michael Kerrisk (man-pages) wrote: > Hi Christoph, > > On 13 October 2016 at 20:16, Christoph Lameter wrote: >> On Thu, 13 Oct 2016, Michael Kerrisk (man-pages) wrote: >> >>> @@

Re: Rewording language in mbind(2) to "threads" not "processes"

Hi Christoph, On 13 October 2016 at 20:16, Christoph Lameter wrote: > On Thu, 13 Oct 2016, Michael Kerrisk (man-pages) wrote: > >> @@ -100,7 +100,10 @@ If, however, the shared memory region was created with >> the >> .B SHM_HUGETLB >> flag, >> the huge pages will be allocated

Re: Rewording language in mbind(2) to "threads" not "processes"

Hi Christoph, On 13 October 2016 at 20:16, Christoph Lameter wrote: > On Thu, 13 Oct 2016, Michael Kerrisk (man-pages) wrote: > >> @@ -100,7 +100,10 @@ If, however, the shared memory region was created with >> the >> .B SHM_HUGETLB >> flag, >> the huge pages will be allocated according to

Re: Rewording language in mbind(2) to "threads" not "processes"

On Thu, 13 Oct 2016, Michael Kerrisk (man-pages) wrote: > @@ -100,7 +100,10 @@ If, however, the shared memory region was created with > the > .B SHM_HUGETLB > flag, > the huge pages will be allocated according to the policy specified > -only if the page allocation is caused by the process

Re: Rewording language in mbind(2) to "threads" not "processes"

On Thu, 13 Oct 2016, Michael Kerrisk (man-pages) wrote: > @@ -100,7 +100,10 @@ If, however, the shared memory region was created with > the > .B SHM_HUGETLB > flag, > the huge pages will be allocated according to the policy specified > -only if the page allocation is caused by the process

Rewording language in mbind(2) to "threads" not "processes"

Christoph, Piotr, and Brice Since you (Christoph and Piotr) helped with documenting MPOL_LOCAL just recently, I wonder if I might ask you to review a patch that I propose for the mbind(2) manual page. As far as I understand, memory policy, as set by set_mempolicy(2) is a per-thread attribute.

Rewording language in mbind(2) to "threads" not "processes"

Christoph, Piotr, and Brice Since you (Christoph and Piotr) helped with documenting MPOL_LOCAL just recently, I wonder if I might ask you to review a patch that I propose for the mbind(2) manual page. As far as I understand, memory policy, as set by set_mempolicy(2) is a per-thread attribute.