linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] add __GFP_ZERO to GFP_LEVEL

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20070724120751.401bcbcb@schroedinger.engr.sgi.com>
Date:	Tue, 24 Jul 2007 12:07:51 -0700
From:	Christoph Lameter <clameter@....com>
To:	Christoph Lameter <clameter@....com>
Cc:	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
	Mel Gorman <mel@...net.ie>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Daniel Phillips <phillips@...gle.com>,
	linux-mm <linux-mm@...ck.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] add __GFP_ZERO to GFP_LEVEL_MASK

GFP_LEVEL_MASK is used to allow the pass through of page allocator
flags. Currently these are

#define GFP_LEVEL_MASK (__GFP_WAIT|__GFP_HIGH|__GFP_IO|__GFP_FS| \
                        __GFP_COLD|__GFP_NOWARN|__GFP_REPEAT| \
                        __GFP_NOFAIL|__GFP_NORETRY|__GFP_COMP| \
                        __GFP_NOMEMALLOC|__GFP_HARDWALL|__GFP_THISNODE|
			__GFP_MOVABLE)

Some of these flags control page allocator reclaim and fallback
behavior. If they are specified for a slab alloc operation then they
are effective if a new slab has to be allocated. These are

1. Reclaim control

__GFP_WAIT
__GFP_IO
__GFP_FS
__GFP_NOWARN
__GFP_REPEAT
__GFP_NOFAIL
__GFP_NORETRY

2. Reserve control

__GFP_HIGH
__GFP_NOMEMALLOC

2. Fallback control

__GFP_HARDWALL	(cpuset contraints)
__GFP_THISNODE (handled by SLAB on its own, SLUB/SLOB pass through)

AFAIK these make sense.

Then there are some other flags. I am wondering why they are in
GFP_LEVEL_MASK?

__GFP_COLD	Does not make sense for slab allocators since we have
		to touch the page immediately.

__GFP_COMP	No effect. Added by the page allocator on their own
		if a higher order allocs are used for a slab.

__GFP_MOVABLE	The movability of a slab is determined by the
		options specified at kmem_cache_create time. If this is
		specified at kmalloc time then we will have some random
		slabs movable and others not. 

-
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/