linux-kernel - Re: why do we still need bootmem allocator?

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, 25 Jun 2018 20:03:32 +0200
From:   Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>
To:     Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>
Cc:     linux-mm@...ck.org, hannes@...xchg.org,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        linux-arch@...r.kernel.org,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: why do we still need bootmem allocator?

On Mon 25-06-18 10:09:41, Rob Herring wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 25, 2018 at 8:08 AM Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org> wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> > I am wondering why do we still keep mm/bootmem.c when most architectures
> > already moved to nobootmem. Is there any fundamental reason why others
> > cannot or this is just a matter of work?
> 
> Just because no one has done the work. I did a couple of arches
> recently (sh, microblaze, and h8300) mainly because I broke them with
> some DT changes.

I see

> > Btw. what really needs to be
> > done? Btw. is there any documentation telling us what needs to be done
> > in that regards?
> 
> No. The commits converting the arches are the only documentation. It's
> a bit more complicated for platforms that have NUMA support.

I do not see why should be NUMA a problem but I will have a look at your
commits to see what you have done.

Thanks!
-- 
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs