linux-kernel - Re: [RFC 0/3] Recursive reclaim (on __PF

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: <p731we43muw.fsf@bingen.suse.de>
Date:	15 Aug 2007 16:15:35 +0200
From:	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
To:	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
Cc:	Nick Piggin <npiggin@...e.de>,
	Christoph Lameter <clameter@....com>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
	dkegel@...gle.com, David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
	Daniel Phillips <phillips@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC 0/3] Recursive reclaim (on __PF_MEMALLOC)

Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl> writes:
> 
> Christoph's suggestion to set min_free_kbytes to 20% is ridiculous - nor
> does it solve all deadlocks :-(

A minimum enforced reclaimable non dirty threshold wouldn't be
that ridiculous though. So the memory could be used, just not
for dirty data.

His patchkit essentially turns the GFP_ATOMIC requirements 
from free to easily reclaimable. I see that as an general improvement.

I remember sct talked about this many years ago and it's still
a good idea.

-Andi
-
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/