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: Thu, 25 Jun 2009 06:41:55 +0200 From: Nick Piggin <npiggin@...e.de> To: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org> Cc: Pekka Enberg <penberg@...helsinki.fi>, Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, cl@...ux-foundation.org, torvalds@...ux-foundation.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] slab,slub: ignore __GFP_WAIT if we're booting or suspending On Fri, Jun 12, 2009 at 08:30:05AM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: > On Fri, 12 Jun 2009 14:34:00 +0300 Pekka Enberg <penberg@...helsinki.fi> wrote: > > > +static gfp_t slab_gfp_mask __read_mostly = __GFP_BITS_MASK & ~__GFP_WAIT; > > It'd be safer and saner to disable __GFP_FS and __GFP_IO as well. > Having either of those flags set without __GFP_WAIT is a somewhat > self-contradictory thing and there might be code under reclaim which > assumes that __GFP_FS|__GFP_IO implies __GFP_WAIT. > > <wonders why mempool_alloc() didn't clear __GFP_FS> Maybe we never get there if __GFP_WAIT is clear? It would be neater if it did clear __GFP_FS, though... -- 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