| 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.4.64.0701261727400.23091@skynet.skynet.ie> Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2007 17:37:27 +0000 (GMT) From: Mel Gorman <mel@....ul.ie> To: Christoph Lameter <clameter@....com> Cc: linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/8] Allow huge page allocations to use GFP_HIGH_MOVABLE On Fri, 26 Jan 2007, Christoph Lameter wrote: > On Fri, 26 Jan 2007, Mel Gorman wrote: > >>> What is the e1000 problem? Jumbo packet allocation via GFP_KERNEL? >> Yes. Potentially the anti-fragmentation patches could address this by >> clustering atomic allocations together as much as possible. > > GFP_ATOMIC allocs? Yes > Do you have a reference to the thread where this was > discussed? > It's come up a few times and the converation is always fairly similar although the thread http://lkml.org/lkml/2006/9/22/44 has interesting information on the topic. There has been no serious discussion on whether anti-fragmentation would help it or not. I think it would if atomic allocations were clustered together because then jumbo frame allocations would cluster together in the same MAX_ORDER blocks and tend to keep other allocations away. -- Mel Gorman Part-time Phd Student Linux Technology Center University of Limerick IBM Dublin Software Lab - 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