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]

Date:	Wed, 16 May 2007 23:04:54 +0200
From:	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
To:	Christoph Lameter <clameter@....com>
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, 2007-05-16 at 13:59 -0700, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> On Wed, 16 May 2007, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> 
> > > I do not see any distinction between DMA and regular memory. If we need 
> > > DMA memory to complete the transaction then this wont work?
> > 
> > If network relies on slabs that are cpuset constrained and the page
> > allocator reserves do not match that, then yes, it goes bang.
> 
> So if I put a 32 bit network card in a 64 bit system -> bang?

I hope the network stack already uses the appropriate allocator flags.
If the slab was GFP_DMA that doesn't change, the ->reserve_slab will
still be GFP_DMA.

> > > Is there some indicator somewhere that indicates that we are in trouble? I 
> > > just see the ranks.
> > 
> > Yes, and page->rank will only ever be 0 if the page was allocated with
> > ALLOC_NO_WATERMARKS, and that only ever happens if we're in dire
> > straights and entitled to it.
> > 
> > Otherwise it'll be ALLOC_WMARK_MIN or somesuch.
> 
> How we know that we are out of trouble? Just try another alloc and see? If 
> that is the case then we may be failing allocations after the memory 
> situation has cleared up.

No, no, for each regular allocation we retry to populate ->cpu_slab with
a new slab. If that works we're out of the woods and the ->reserve_slab
is cleaned up.

-
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/