linux-kernel - Re: [RFC] Reverting NUMA-affine page table allocation

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Date:	Wed, 2 Mar 2011 19:08:27 +0100
From:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To:	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
Cc:	Yinghai Lu <yinghai@...nel.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC] Reverting NUMA-affine page table allocation


* Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org> wrote:

> Hello,
> 
> On Wed, Mar 02, 2011 at 08:47:54AM -0800, Yinghai Lu wrote:
> > > > Yeah, it's a pretty interesting piece of code in need of some cleanup.
> > No, i mean second one is not causing any problem.
> > 
> > that only take end is intentionally. that will make sure we can get
> > space for page table even in extreme case.
> 
> Hmmm... it seems like it only took @end because it always allocated
> the whole page table in one go.  Always from the bottom to top.  Am I
> missing something?
> 
> > > > If you're interested in doing the above, please go ahead and let me
> > > > know.
> > 
> > No. please don't revert it.
> > 
> > Ingo, please get patches that will align to 1G ... from
> > 
> > 	git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/yinghai/linux-2.6-yinghai.git memblock
> 
> If you were gonna do that, you could have just said that you objected
> to the reverting.  The message was Request for Comments - soliciting
> responses.
> 
> As I wrote multiple times, I think the code as implemented is a bit
> heavy handed for the problem.  And a bigger problem for me is that it
> kind of just piles on the existing messiness and worsens it.  I really
> hope we wouldn't be doing that anymore.
> 
> I tried to clean up the page table allocation code but the necessary
> changes felt a bit too large at this stage, so IMO that's best left to
> the next cycle.

Do you plan to implement it more cleanly?

> To me, it seems complicated for not good enough reasons.  I'll defer
> the decision to x86 maintainers.  Ingo, hpa, Thomas, what do you guys
> think?

Would be nice to see an actual patch that does the revert.

Thanks,

	Ingo
--
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/