linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 3/3] Quick vmalloc vs kmalloc fix to the case where array size is too large

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

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Tue, 14 Jul 2009 10:47:32 -0700
From:	Dave Hansen <dave@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:	Paul Menage <menage@...gle.com>
Cc:	KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>,
	containers@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
	Benjamin Blum <bblum@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] Quick vmalloc vs kmalloc fix to the case where
 array  size is too large

On Tue, 2009-07-14 at 10:28 -0700, Paul Menage wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 9:25 PM, KAMEZAWA
> Hiroyuki<kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com> wrote:
> > My point is
> >  - More PIDs, More time necessary to read procs file.
> 
> Right now, many pids => impossible to read procs file due to kmalloc
> failure. (This was always the case with cpusets too). So using kmalloc
> in those cases is a strict improvement.

How big were those allocations that were failing?  The code made it
appear that order-2 (PAGE_SIZE*4) allocations were failing.  That's a
bit lower than I'd expect the page allocator to start failing.

-- Dave

--
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/