linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/5] make slab gfp fair

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.4.64.0705161343080.11234@schroedinger.engr.sgi.com>
Date:	Wed, 16 May 2007 13:44:59 -0700 (PDT)
From:	Christoph Lameter <clameter@....com>
To:	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
cc:	Matt Mackall <mpm@...enic.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-mm@...ck.org, Thomas Graf <tgraf@...g.ch>,
	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Daniel Phillips <phillips@...gle.com>,
	Pekka Enberg <penberg@...helsinki.fi>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/5] make slab gfp fair

On Wed, 16 May 2007, Peter Zijlstra wrote:

> > How does all of this interact with
> > 
> > 1. cpusets
> > 
> > 2. dma allocations and highmem?
> > 
> > 3. Containers?
> 
> Much like the normal kmem_cache would do; I'm not changing any of the
> page allocation semantics.

So if we run out of memory on a cpuset then network I/O will still fail?

I do not see any distinction between DMA and regular memory. If we need 
DMA memory to complete the transaction then this wont work?


> But its wanted to try the normal cpu_slab path first to detect that the
> situation has subsided and we can resume normal operation.

Is there some indicator somewhere that indicates that we are in trouble? I 
just see the ranks.

-
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/