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.4.64.0705171027390.17245@schroedinger.engr.sgi.com>
Date:	Thu, 17 May 2007 10:29:06 -0700 (PDT)
From:	Christoph Lameter <clameter@....com>
To:	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
cc:	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>,
	Matt Mackall <mpm@...enic.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/5] make slab gfp fair

On Thu, 17 May 2007, Peter Zijlstra wrote:

> I'm really not seeing why you're making such a fuzz about it; normally
> when you push the system this hard we're failing allocations left right
> and center too. Its just that the block IO path has some mempools which
> allow it to write out some (swap) pages and slowly get back to sanity.

I am weirdly confused by these patches. Among other things you told me 
that the performance does not matter since its never (or rarely) being 
used (why do it then?). Then we do these strange swizzles with reserve 
slabs that may contain an indeterminate amount of objects.

-
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/