linux-kernel - Re: Avoid allocating during interleave from almost full nodes

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: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0611061334380.30192@schroedinger.engr.sgi.com>
Date:	Mon, 6 Nov 2006 13:42:56 -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 Mon, 6 Nov 2006, Andrew Morton wrote:

> But doesn't this patch introduce considerable risks of the above problems
> occurring?  In the two-nodes-have-lots-of-free-memory scenario?

If two nodes have lots of memory then we will alternate between both 
nodes. If one of the nodes is going below the interleave limit then we 
will indeed only allocate from that single node. At some point both are 
dropping below the limit and we will revert back to alternating.

We can avoid the phase where we only allocate from one node by checking 
the node weight of the available nodes instead of checking for an empty 
node mask.

For systems with less than 3 nodes the approach will not be useful. What I 
had in mind when writing this patch were systems with a large number of 
nodes segmented by cpusets into smaller slices. The segments would 
still be greater than 4 nodes.
-
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/