linux-ext4 - Re: [PATCH 0/9] mm: generic adaptive large memory allocation APIs

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Thu, 13 May 2010 15:56:43 -0600
From:	Andreas Dilger <andreas.dilger@...cle.com>
To:	James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...e.de>
Cc:	Changli Gao <xiaosuo@...il.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Hoang-Nam Nguyen <hnguyen@...ibm.com>,
	Christoph Raisch <raisch@...ibm.com>,
	Roland Dreier <rolandd@...co.com>,
	Sean Hefty <sean.hefty@...el.com>,
	Hal Rosenstock <hal.rosenstock@...il.com>,
	Divy Le Ray <divy@...lsio.com>,
	"Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@....edu>,
	Alexander Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
	Paul Menage <menage@...gle.com>,
	Li Zefan <lizf@...fujitsu.com>, linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org Mailinglist" 
	<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org,
	"linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org development" <linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org>,
	linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
	containers@...ts.linux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/9] mm: generic adaptive large memory allocation APIs

On 2010-05-13, at 09:04, James Bottomley wrote:
> This isn't necessarily true ... most drivers and filesystems have to
> know what type they're getting.  Often they have to do extra tricks to
> process vmalloc areas.  Conversely, large kmalloc areas are a very
> precious commodity: if a driver or filesystem can handle vmalloc for
> large allocations, it should: it's easier for us to expand the vmalloc
> area than to try to make page reclaim keep large contiguous areas ... I
> notice your proposed API does the exact opposite of this ... tries
> kmalloc first and then does vmalloc.
> 
> Given this policy problem, isn't it easier simply to hand craft the
> vmalloc fall back to kmalloc (or vice versa) in the driver than add this
> whole massive raft of APIs for it?

I know we wouldn't mind using large vmalloc allocations for e.g. per-group arrays in ext4 (allocated once per mount), but I'd always understood that using vmalloc for general purpose uses can have a significant impact because the vmalloc() engine has (had?) serious performance problems.  That means it is better performance-wise to have a wrapper function like this to switch between kmalloc() and vmalloc() based on the allocation size, but it makes the code ugly.  Having the wrapper in the kernel would at least identify the different places that are using this kind of workaround.

If the performance of vmalloc() has been improved in the last few years, then I'd be happy to just use vmalloc() all the time.  That said, vmalloc still isn't suitable for sub-page allocations, so if you have a variable-sized allocation that may be very small or very large the small allocations will waste a whole page and a wrapper is still needed, or vmalloc should be changed to call kmalloc/kfree for the sub-page allocations.

Cheers, Andreas
--
Andreas Dilger
Lustre Technical Lead
Oracle Corporation Canada Inc.

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html