From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754162AbcJNKLO (ORCPT ); Fri, 14 Oct 2016 06:11:14 -0400 Received: from mail-qk0-f182.google.com ([209.85.220.182]:33907 "EHLO mail-qk0-f182.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750846AbcJNKLE (ORCPT ); Fri, 14 Oct 2016 06:11:04 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Reply-To: mtk.manpages@gmail.com In-Reply-To: References: From: "Michael Kerrisk (man-pages)" Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2016 12:09:44 +0200 Message-ID: Subject: Re: Rewording language in mbind(2) to "threads" not "processes" To: Christoph Lameter Cc: Piotr Kwapulinski , mhocko@kernel.org, mgorman@techsingularity.net, Peter Zijlstra , Rik van Riel , "linux-mm@kvack.org" , lkml , linux-man , Brice Goglin Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org 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 the policy specified >> -only if the page allocation is caused by the process that calls >> +only if the page allocation is caused by the thread that calls >> +.\" >> +.\" ??? Is it correct to change "process" to "thread" in the preceding line? > > No leave it as process. Pages get one map refcount per page table > that references them (meaning a process). More than one map refcount means > that multiple processes have mapped the page. > >> @@ -300,7 +303,10 @@ is specified in >> .IR flags , >> then the kernel will attempt to move all the existing pages >> in the memory range so that they follow the policy. >> -Pages that are shared with other processes will not be moved. >> +Pages that are shared with other threads will not be moved. >> +.\" >> +.\" ??? Is it correct to change "processes" to "threads" in the preceding line? >> +.\" > > Leave it. Same as before. > >> If >> then the kernel will attempt to move all existing pages in the memory range >> -regardless of whether other processes use the pages. >> -The calling process must be privileged >> +regardless of whether other threads use the pages. >> +.\" >> +.\" ??? Is it correct to change "processes" to "threads" in the preceding line? >> +.\" > > Leave as process. Thanks. So, are all the other cases where I changed "process" to "thread" okay then? Cheers, Michael -- Michael Kerrisk Linux man-pages maintainer; http://www.kernel.org/doc/man-pages/ Linux/UNIX System Programming Training: http://man7.org/training/ From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Michael Kerrisk (man-pages)" Subject: Re: Rewording language in mbind(2) to "threads" not "processes" Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2016 12:09:44 +0200 Message-ID: References: Reply-To: mtk.manpages@gmail.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Return-path: In-Reply-To: Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org To: Christoph Lameter Cc: Piotr Kwapulinski , mhocko@kernel.org, mgorman@techsingularity.net, Peter Zijlstra , Rik van Riel , "linux-mm@kvack.org" , lkml , linux-man , Brice Goglin List-Id: linux-man@vger.kernel.org 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 the policy specified >> -only if the page allocation is caused by the process that calls >> +only if the page allocation is caused by the thread that calls >> +.\" >> +.\" ??? Is it correct to change "process" to "thread" in the preceding line? > > No leave it as process. Pages get one map refcount per page table > that references them (meaning a process). More than one map refcount means > that multiple processes have mapped the page. > >> @@ -300,7 +303,10 @@ is specified in >> .IR flags , >> then the kernel will attempt to move all the existing pages >> in the memory range so that they follow the policy. >> -Pages that are shared with other processes will not be moved. >> +Pages that are shared with other threads will not be moved. >> +.\" >> +.\" ??? Is it correct to change "processes" to "threads" in the preceding line? >> +.\" > > Leave it. Same as before. > >> If >> then the kernel will attempt to move all existing pages in the memory range >> -regardless of whether other processes use the pages. >> -The calling process must be privileged >> +regardless of whether other threads use the pages. >> +.\" >> +.\" ??? Is it correct to change "processes" to "threads" in the preceding line? >> +.\" > > Leave as process. Thanks. So, are all the other cases where I changed "process" to "thread" okay then? Cheers, Michael -- Michael Kerrisk Linux man-pages maintainer; http://www.kernel.org/doc/man-pages/ Linux/UNIX System Programming Training: http://man7.org/training/ -- 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/ . Don't email: email@kvack.org