linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v5 0/6] Introduce ZONE

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, 30 Aug 2016 16:09:37 +0530
From:   "Aneesh Kumar K.V" <aneesh.kumar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:     Joonsoo Kim <js1304@...il.com>
Cc:     Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
        Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
        Mel Gorman <mgorman@...hsingularity.net>,
        Laura Abbott <lauraa@...eaurora.org>,
        Minchan Kim <minchan@...nel.org>,
        Marek Szyprowski <m.szyprowski@...sung.com>,
        Michal Nazarewicz <mina86@...a86.com>,
        Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>,
        Linux Memory Management List <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 0/6] Introduce ZONE_CMA

Joonsoo Kim <js1304@...il.com> writes:

> 2016-08-29 18:27 GMT+09:00 Aneesh Kumar K.V <aneesh.kumar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>:
>> js1304@...il.com writes:
>>
>>> From: Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@....com>
>>>
>>> Hello,
>>>
>>> Changes from v4
>>> o Rebase on next-20160825
>>> o Add general fix patch for lowmem reserve
>>> o Fix lowmem reserve ratio
>>> o Fix zone span optimizaion per Vlastimil
>>> o Fix pageset initialization
>>> o Change invocation timing on cma_init_reserved_areas()
>>
>> I don't see much information regarding how we interleave between
>> ZONE_CMA and other zones for movable allocation. Is that explained in
>> any of the patch ? The fair zone allocator got removed by
>> e6cbd7f2efb433d717af72aa8510a9db6f7a7e05
>
> Interleaving would not work since the fair zone allocator policy is removed.
> I don't think that it's a big problem because it is just matter of
> timing to fill
> up the memory. Eventually, memory on ZONE_CMA will be fully used in
> any case.

Does that mean a CMA allocation will now be slower because in most case we
will need to reclaim ? The zone list will now have ZONE_CMA in the
beginning right ?

-aneesh