linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] Bias the location of pages freed for min_free_kbytes in the same MAX_ORDER_NR

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: <20070318112820.90be0449.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Date:	Sun, 18 Mar 2007 11:28:20 -0800
From:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	Mel Gorman <mel@....ul.ie>
Cc:	Mariusz Kozlowski <m.kozlowski@...land.pl>,
	Andy Whitcroft <apw@...dowen.org>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Bias the location of pages freed for min_free_kbytes in
 the same MAX_ORDER_NR_PAGES blocks

On Sun, 18 Mar 2007 19:05:41 +0000 (GMT) Mel Gorman <mel@....ul.ie> wrote:

> > How much additional memory consumption are we expecting here?
> >
> 
> Short answer, about 1.5KB on a 1GB system of which 1.3KB is statically 
> defined in the 3 struct zones on a 1 node x86 system.
> 
> Longer answer that I hopefully have not made any mistakes in - There is 
> the zone overhead which is statically sized and a runtime overhead which 
> depends on the amount of memory in the system. The additional zone 
> overhead is the overhead for additional freelists (larger struct 
> free_area) and is as follows;
> 
> (MIGRATE_TYPES-1) * sizeof(list_head) * (MAX_ORDER-1)
> 
> so, on 32 bit in general, thats
> 
> 4 * 8 * 10 = 320 bytes per zone (would be 240 bytes if MIGRATE_RESERVE is
>  				sufficient for higher order allocations
>  				instead of MIGRATE_HIGHALLOC)
> 
> on x86 with DMA, Normal and HighMem, thats 1280 bytes. On a NUMA system, 
> it's 1280 bytes per node. On 64 bit, it would be double because of the 
> larger pointer size. At worst, I guess you are looking at 3KB per node.

That a very modest overhead - not worth the config option, IMO.

The runtime overhead might be a concern - is it possible to quantify
it?
-
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/