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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Message-Id: <20070724122542.d4ac734a.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Date:	Tue, 24 Jul 2007 12:25:42 -0700
From:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	Christoph Lameter <clameter@....com>
Cc:	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
	Mel Gorman <mel@...net.ie>,
	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

On Tue, 24 Jul 2007 12:07:51 -0700
Christoph Lameter <clameter@....com> wrote:

> 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. 

Yes, they seem inappropriate.  Especially the first two.
-
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/