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 11:46:00 -0700 (PDT)
From:	Christoph Lameter <clameter@....com>
To:	Nick Piggin <npiggin@...e.de>
cc:	Mel Gorman <mel@...net.ie>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, kenchen@...gle.com,
	jschopp@...tin.ibm.com, apw@...dowen.org,
	kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com, a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl,
	y-goto@...fujitsu.com, linux-mm@...ck.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: -mm merge plans -- anti-fragmentation

On Tue, 10 Jul 2007, Nick Piggin wrote:

> I realise in your pragmatic approach, you are encouraging users to
> put fallbacks in place in case a higher order page cannot be allocated,
> but I don't think either higher order pagecache or higher order slubs
> have such fallbacks (fsblock or a combination of fsblock and higher
> order pagecache could have, but...).

We have run mm kernels for month now without the need of a fallback. I 
purpose of ZONE_MOVABLE was to guarantee that higher order pages could be 
reclaimed and thus make the scheme reliable?

The experience so far shows that the approach works reliably. If there are 
issues then they need to be fixed. Putting in workarounds in other places 
such as in fsblock may just be hiding problems if there are any.

-
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/