| lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
|
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Sat, 21 Apr 2007 01:28:43 -0700 From: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org> To: Andy Whitcroft <apw@...dowen.org> Cc: linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Mel Gorman <mel@....ul.ie> Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] introduce HIGH_ORDER delineating easily reclaimable orders On Fri, 20 Apr 2007 16:04:36 +0100 Andy Whitcroft <apw@...dowen.org> wrote: > The memory allocator treats lower order (order <= 3) and higher order > (order >= 4) allocations in slightly different ways. As lower orders > are much more likely to be available and also more likely to be > simply reclaimed it is deemed reasonable to wait longer for those. > Lumpy reclaim also changes behaviour at this same boundary, more > agressivly targetting pages in reclaim at higher order. > > This patch removes all these magical numbers and replaces with > with a constant HIGH_ORDER. oh, there we go. It would have been better to have patched page_alloc.c independently, then to have used HIGH_ORDER in "lumpy: increase pressure at the end of the inactive list". The name HIGH_ORDER is a bit squidgy. I'm not sure what would be better though. PAGE_ALLOC_CLUSTER_MAX? It'd be interesting to turn this into a runtime tunable, perhaps. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists