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:	Wed, 25 Aug 2010 09:20:37 -0400
From:	Theodore Tso <tytso@....EDU>
To:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:	David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
	Jens Axboe <jaxboe@...ionio.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Neil Brown <neilb@...e.de>, Alasdair G Kergon <agk@...hat.com>,
	Chris Mason <chris.mason@...cle.com>,
	Steven Whitehouse <swhiteho@...hat.com>,
	Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>,
	Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
	"linux-raid@...r.kernel.org" <linux-raid@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-btrfs@...r.kernel.org" <linux-btrfs@...r.kernel.org>,
	"cluster-devel@...hat.com" <cluster-devel@...hat.com>,
	"linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org" <linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org>,
	"reiserfs-devel@...r.kernel.org" <reiserfs-devel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [patch 1/5] mm: add nofail variants of kmalloc kcalloc and kzalloc


On Aug 25, 2010, at 8:52 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> Also, there's a good reason for disliking (a), its a deadlock scenario,
> suppose we need to write out data to get free pages, but the writing out
> is blocked on requiring free pages.
> 
> There's really nothing the page allocator can do to help you there, its
> a situation you have to avoid getting into.

Well, if all of these users start having their own private pools of emergency memory, I'm not sure that's such a great idea either.

And in some cases, there *is* extra memory.  For example, if the reason why the page allocator failed is because there isn't enough memory in the current process's cgroup, maybe it's important enough that the kernel code might decide to say, "violate the cgroup constraints --- it's more important that we not bring down the entire system" than to honor whatever yahoo decided that a particular cgroup has been set down to something ridiculous like 512mb, when there's plenty of free physical memory --- but not in that cgroup.

-- Ted

--
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

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ