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.4.64.0705161410220.11517@schroedinger.engr.sgi.com>
Date:	Wed, 16 May 2007 14:13:04 -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 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.

Hmmm.. so we could simplify the scheme by storing the last rank 
somewheres.

If the alloc has less priority and we can extend the slab then
clear up the situation.

If we cannot extend the slab then the alloc must fail.

Could you put the rank into the page flags? On 64 bit at least there 
should be enough space.
-
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/