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
| ||
|
Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2010 16:38:00 +1000 From: Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com> To: Ted Ts'o <tytso@....edu>, David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, 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 Wed, Aug 25, 2010 at 09:48:47PM -0400, Ted Ts'o wrote: > On Wed, Aug 25, 2010 at 05:30:42PM -0700, David Rientjes wrote: > > > > We certainly hope that nobody will reimplement the same function without > > the __deprecated warning, especially for order < PAGE_ALLOC_COSTLY_ORDER > > where there's no looping at a higher level. So perhaps the best > > alternative is to implement the same _nofail() functions but do a > > WARN_ON(get_order(size) > PAGE_ALLOC_COSTLY_ORDER) instead? > > Yeah, that sounds better. > > > I think it's really sad that the caller can't know what the upper bounds > > of its memory requirement are ahead of time or at least be able to > > implement a memory freeing function when kmalloc() returns NULL. > > Oh, we can determine an upper bound. You might just not like it. > Actually ext3/ext4 shouldn't be as bad as XFS, which Dave estimated to > be around 400k for a transaction. For a 4k block size filesystem. If I use 64k block size directories (which XFS can even on 4k page size machines), the maximum transaction reservation goes up to at around 3MB, and that's just for blocks being _modified_. It's not the limit on the amount of memory that may need to be allocated during a transaction.... > My guess is that the worst case for > ext3/ext4 is probably around 256k or so; like XFS, most of the time, > it would be a lot less. Right, it usually is a lot less, but one of the big problems is that during low memory situations memory reclaim of the metadata page cache actually causes _more_ memory allocation during tranactions than otherwise would occur....... Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@...morbit.com -- 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