linux-kernel - Re: [00/41] Large Blocksize Support V7 (adds memmap support)

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]

Date:	Fri, 14 Sep 2007 06:51:29 +1000
From:	Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@...oo.com.au>
To:	Christoph Lameter <clameter@....com>
Cc:	Mel Gorman <mel@....ul.ie>, andrea@...e.de,
	torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>,
	Mel Gorman <mel@...net.ie>,
	William Lee Irwin III <wli@...omorphy.com>,
	David Chinner <dgc@....com>,
	Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@...cle.com>,
	Badari Pulavarty <pbadari@...il.com>,
	Maxim Levitsky <maximlevitsky@...il.com>,
	Fengguang Wu <fengguang.wu@...il.com>,
	swin wang <wangswin@...il.com>, totty.lu@...il.com,
	hugh@...itas.com, joern@...ybastard.org
Subject: Re: [00/41] Large Blocksize Support V7 (adds memmap support)

On Thursday 13 September 2007 09:06, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> On Wed, 12 Sep 2007, Nick Piggin wrote:

> > So lumpy reclaim does not change my formula nor significantly help
> > against a fragmentation attack. AFAIKS.
>
> Lumpy reclaim improves the situation significantly because the
> overwhelming majority of allocation during the lifetime of a systems are
> movable and thus it is able to opportunistically restore the availability
> of higher order pages by reclaiming neighboring pages.

I'm talking about non movable allocations.


> > [*] ok, this isn't quite true because if you can actually put a hard
> > limit on unmovable allocations then anti-frag will fundamentally help --
> > get back to me on that when you get patches to move most of the obvious 
> > ones.
>
> We have this hard limit using ZONE_MOVABLE in 2.6.23.

So we're back to 2nd class support.


> > Sure, and I pointed out the theoretical figure for 64K pages as well. Is
> > that figure not problematic to you? Where do you draw the limit for what
> > is acceptable? Why? What happens with tiny memory machines where a
> > reserve or even the anti-frag patches may not be acceptable and/or work
> > very well? When do you require reserve pools? Why are reserve pools
> > acceptable for first-class support of filesystems when it has been very
> > loudly been made a known policy decision by Linus in the past (and for
> > some valid reasons) that we should not put limits on the sizes of caches
> > in the kernel.
>
> 64K pages may problematic because it is above the PAGE_ORDER_COSTLY in
> 2.6.23. 32K is currently much safer because lumpy reclaim can restore
> these and does so on my systems. I expect the situation for 64K pages to
> improve when more of Mel's patches go in. We have long term experience
> with 32k sized allocation through Andrew's tree.
>
> Reserve pools as handled (by the not yet available) large page pool
> patches (which again has altogether another purpose) are not a limit. The
> reserve pools are used to provide a mininum of higher order pages that is
> not broken down in order to insure that a mininum number of the desired
> order of pages is even available in your worst case scenario. Mainly I
> think that is needed during the period when memory defragmentation is
> still under development.

fsblock doesn't need any of those hacks, of course.
-
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/