| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0611031622540.16997@schroedinger.engr.sgi.com> Date: Fri, 3 Nov 2006 16:28:31 -0800 (PST) From: Christoph Lameter <clameter@....com> To: Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org> cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: Avoid allocating during interleave from almost full nodes On Fri, 3 Nov 2006, Andrew Morton wrote: > But in this application which you are proposing, any correlation with > elapsed walltime is very slight. It's just the wrong baseline to use. > What is the *sense* in it? You just accepted Paul's use of a similar mechanism to void cached zonelists. He has a one second timeout for the cache there it seems. The sense is that memory on nodes may be freed and then we need to allocate from those nodes again. > Yes. And it is wrong to do so. Because a node may well have no "free" > pages but plenty of completely stale ones which should be reclaimed. But there may be other nodes that have more free pages. If we allocate from those then we can avoid reclaim. > Reclaim isn't expensive. It is needlessly expensive if its done for an allocation that is not bound to a specific node and there are other nodes with free pages. We may throw out pages that we need later. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists