linux-kernel - Re: -mm merge plans -- anti-fragmentation

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:	Tue, 10 Jul 2007 09:29:45 -0500
From:	Dave McCracken <dave.mccracken@...cle.com>
To:	Mel Gorman <mel@...net.ie>
Cc:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, npiggin@...e.de,
	kenchen@...gle.com, jschopp@...tin.ibm.com, apw@...dowen.org,
	kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com, a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl,
	y-goto@...fujitsu.com, clameter@....com, linux-mm@...ck.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: -mm merge plans -- anti-fragmentation

On Tuesday 10 July 2007, Mel Gorman wrote:
> >  Mel's page allocator work.  Might merge this, but I'm still not hearing
> >  sufficiently convincing noises from a sufficient number of people over
> > this.
>
> This is a long on-going story. It bounces between people who say it's not a
> complete solution and everything should have the 100% ability to defragment
> and the people on the other side that say it goes a long way to solving
> their problem. I've cc'd some of the parties that have expressed any
> interest in the last year.

I find myself wondering what "sufficiently convincing noises" are.  I think we 
can all agree that in the current kernel order>0 allocations are a disaster.  
They simply aren't useable once the system fragments.  I think we can also 
all agree that 100% defragmentation is impossible without rewriting the 
kernel to avoid the hard-coded virtual->physical relationship we have now.

With that said, the only remaining question I see is whether we need order>0 
allocations.  If we do, then Mel's patches are clearly the right thing to do.  
They have received a lot of testing (if just by virtue of being in -mm for so 
long), and have shown to greatly increase the availability of order>0 pages.

The sheer list of patches lined up behind this set is strong evidence that 
there are useful features which depend on a working order>0.  When you add in 
the existing code that has to struggle with allocation failures or resort to 
special pools (ie hugetlbfs), I see a clear vote for the need for this patch.

Some object because order>0 will still be able to fail.  I point out that 
order==0 can also fail, though we go to great lengths to prevent it.  Mel's 
patches raise the success rate of order>0 to within a few percent of 
order==0.  All this means is callers will need to decide how to handle the 
infrequent failure.  This should be true no matter what the order.

I strongly vote for merging these patches.  Let's get them in mainline where 
they can do some good.

Dave McCracken
-
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/