linux-ext4 - Re: [PATCH 3/3] mm: slub: Default slub_max

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]

Message-ID: <20110516084230.GC5279@suse.de>
Date:	Mon, 16 May 2011 09:42:30 +0100
From:	Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>
To:	Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>
Cc:	Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>,
	Pekka Enberg <penberg@...nel.org>,
	James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...senpartnership.com>,
	Dave Jones <davej@...hat.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Colin King <colin.king@...onical.com>,
	Raghavendra D Prabhu <raghu.prabhu13@...il.com>,
	Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>, Chris Mason <chris.mason@...cle.com>,
	Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
	Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
	linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
	linux-mm <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
	linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	linux-ext4 <linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] mm: slub: Default slub_max_order to 0

On Sun, May 15, 2011 at 06:39:06PM +0200, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
> On Fri, May 13, 2011 at 10:49:58AM +0100, Mel Gorman wrote:
> > On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 08:00:18PM +0200, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
> > > <SNIP>
> > >
> > > BTW, it comes to mind in patch 2, SLUB should clear __GFP_REPEAT too
> > > (not only __GFP_NOFAIL). Clearing __GFP_WAIT may be worth it or not
> > > with COMPACTION=y, definitely good idea to clear __GFP_WAIT unless
> > > lumpy is restricted to __GFP_REPEAT|__GFP_NOFAIL.
> > 
> > This is in V2 (unreleased, testing in progress and was running
> > overnight). I noticed that clearing __GFP_REPEAT is required for
> > reclaim/compaction if direct reclaimers from SLUB are to return false in
> > should_continue_reclaim() and bail out from high-order allocation
> > properly. As it is, there is a possibility for slub high-order direct
> > reclaimers to loop in reclaim/compaction for a long time. This is
> > only important when CONFIG_COMPACTION=y.
> 
> Agreed. However I don't expect anyone to allocate from slub(/slab)
> with __GFP_REPEAT so it's probably only theoretical but more correct
> indeed ;).

Networking layer does specify __GFP_REPEAT.

-- 
Mel Gorman
SUSE Labs
--
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