linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 07/39] lmb: Add lmb_find

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:	Mon, 12 Apr 2010 22:26:12 -0700
From:	Yinghai <yinghai.lu@...cle.com>
To:	Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>
CC:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 07/39] lmb: Add lmb_find_area()

On 04/12/2010 10:07 PM, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> On Mon, 2010-04-12 at 21:29 -0700, Yinghai wrote:
>>
>>> Haven't you noticed there's already way too many functions walking
>> the
>>> LMBs ? :-)
>>
>> x86 is using original lmb_reserve, lmb_free(), but have own version
>> lmb_find_area(), and it will be dropped after
>> more testing of generic version of lmb_find_area()
> 
> Do -not- add no APIs that are meant to be dropped. They never are in
> practice. What I'm saying here is that the LMB code (including existing
> stuff) could use some factoring in this area.

current generic lmb_find_area() is allocating from high to low.
x86 32bit seems have problem with that.
in this patchset, it is fixed, but not sure if i missed sth.
so could remove x86 lmb_find_area after more test coverage.

> 
>>>
>>> I think the ones doing nid alloc could/should be also rewritten to
>> use
>>> one single low level __lmb_find_* no ?
>>
>> that nid_alloc() only has one user (sparc64).
>>
>> maybe could be replaced by lmd_find_area_node(), but need to make sure
>> early_node_map[] is filled at first.
> 
> How does it work today ? IE. Which ever mechanism is used that works I
> don't care but we shouldn't use 2 different ones.

x86 is only use find_area_early() with node area scope, David point that could have problem with cross node mem map.

YH 
--
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/