linux-kernel - Re: [RFC 0/9] Reclaim during GFP

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: <20070816024949.GA16372@wotan.suse.de>
Date:	Thu, 16 Aug 2007 04:49:49 +0200
From:	Nick Piggin <npiggin@...e.de>
To:	Christoph Lameter <clameter@....com>
Cc:	linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	akpm@...ux-foundation.org, dkegel@...gle.com,
	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Subject: Re: [RFC 0/9] Reclaim during GFP_ATOMIC allocs

On Tue, Aug 14, 2007 at 08:30:21AM -0700, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> This is the extended version of the reclaim patchset. It enables reclaim from
> clean file backed pages during GFP_ATOMIC allocs. A bit invasive since
> may locks must now be taken with saving flags. But it works.
> 
> Tested by repeatedly allocating 12MB of memory from the timer interrupt.
> 
> -- 

Just to clarify... I can see how recursive reclaim can prevent memory getting
eaten up by reclaim (which thus causes allocations from interrupt handlers to
fail)...

But this patchset I don't see will do anything to prevent reclaim deadlocks,
right? (because if there is reclaimable memory at hand, then kswapd should
eventually reclaim it).
-
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/