linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 3/8] Allow huge page allocations to use GFP_HIGH

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: <45BA49F2.2000804@nortel.com>
Date:	Fri, 26 Jan 2007 12:35:30 -0600
From:	"Chris Friesen" <cfriesen@...tel.com>
To:	Mel Gorman <mel@....ul.ie>
CC:	Christoph Lameter <clameter@....com>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/8] Allow huge page allocations to use GFP_HIGH_MOVABLE

Mel Gorman wrote:

> Worse, the problem is to have high order contiguous blocks free at the 
> time of allocation without reclaim or migration. If the allocations were 
> not atomic, anti-fragmentation as it is today would be enough.

Has anyone looked at marking the buffers as "needs refilling" then kick 
off a kernel thread or something to do the allocations under GFP_KERNEL? 
  That way we avoid having to allocate the buffers with GFP_ATOMIC.

I seem to recall that the tulip driver used to do this.  Is it just too 
complicated from a race condition standpoint?

We currently see this issue on our systems, as we have older e1000 
hardware with 9KB jumbo frames.  After a while we just fail to allocate 
buffers and the system goes belly-up.

Chris
-
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/