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: <20070905121937.GA9246@wotan.suse.de>
Date:	Wed, 5 Sep 2007 14:19:38 +0200
From:	Nick Piggin <npiggin@...e.de>
To:	Christoph Lameter <clameter@....com>
Cc:	Daniel Phillips <phillips@...nq.net>, 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 0/3] Recursive reclaim (on __PF_MEMALLOC)

On Wed, Sep 05, 2007 at 05:14:06AM -0700, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> On Wed, 5 Sep 2007, Nick Piggin wrote:
> 
> > However I really have an aversion to the near enough is good enough way of
> > thinking. Especially when it comes to fundamental deadlocks in the VM. I
> > don't know whether Peter's patch is completely clean yet, but fixing the
> > fundamentally broken code has my full support.
> 
> Uhh. There are already numerous other issues why the VM is failing that is 
> independent of Peter's approach.

I don't know what your point is? We either ignore it, or try to fix things
one at a time.


> > I hate it that there are theoretical bugs still left even if they would
> > be hit less frequently than hardware failure. And that people are really
> > happy to put even more of these things in :(
> 
> Theoretical bugs? Depends on one's creativity to come up with them I 
> guess. So far we do not even get around to address the known issues and 
> this multi subsystem patch has the potential of creating more.

I can't direct people as to what bugs to work on.


> > Anyway, as you know I like your patch and if that gives Peter a little
> > more breathing space then it's a good thing. But I really hope he doesn't
> > give up on it, and it should be merged one day.
> 
> Using the VM to throttle networking is a pretty bad thing because it 
> assumes single critical user of memory. There are other consumers of 
> memory and if you have a load that depends on other things than networking 
> then you should not kill the other things that want memory.

Implementation issues aside, the problem is there and I would like to
see it fixed regardless if some/most/or all users in practice don't
hit 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/