linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] Add __GFP_MOVABLE for callers to flag allocations that may be migrated

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.4.64.0612051159510.18687@schroedinger.engr.sgi.com>
Date:	Tue, 5 Dec 2006 12:01:57 -0800 (PST)
From:	Christoph Lameter <clameter@....com>
To:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>
cc:	Mel Gorman <mel@...net.ie>,
	Linux Memory Management List <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Add __GFP_MOVABLE for callers to flag allocations that
 may be migrated

On Tue, 5 Dec 2006, Andrew Morton wrote:

> > We always run reclaim against the whole zone not against parts. Why 
> > would we start running reclaim against a portion of a zone?
> 
> Oh for gawd's sake.

Yes indeed. Another failure to answer a simple question.
 
> If you want to allocate a page from within the first 1/4 of a zone, and if
> all those pages are in use for something else then you'll need to run
> reclaim against the first 1/4 of that zone.  Or fail the allocation.  Or
> run reclaim against the entire zone.  The second two options are
> self-evidently dumb.

Why would one want to allocate from the 1/4th of a zone? (Are we still 
discussing Mel's antifrag scheme or what is this about?)


-
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/