linux-kernel - Re: [patch 17/20] non-reclaimable mlocked pages

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:	Thu, 20 Dec 2007 10:33:32 -0500
From:	Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>
To:	Christoph Lameter <clameter@....com>
Cc:	Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@...oo.com.au>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Lee Schermerhorn <lee.schermerhorn@...com>
Subject: Re: [patch 17/20] non-reclaimable mlocked pages

On Wed, 19 Dec 2007 23:19:00 -0800 (PST)
Christoph Lameter <clameter@....com> wrote:

> On Wed, 19 Dec 2007, Nick Piggin wrote:
> 
> > These mlocked pages don't need to be on a non-reclaimable list,
> > because we can find them again via the ptes when they become
> > unlocked, and there is no point background scanning them, because
> > they're always going to be locked while they're mlocked.
> 
> But there is something to be said for having a consistent scheme. 

The code as called from .c files should indeed be consistent.

However, since we never need to scan the non-reclaimable list,
we could use the inline functions in the .h files to have an
mlock count instead of a .lru list head in the non-reclaimable
pages.

At least, I think so.  I'm going to have to think about the
details a lot more.  I have no idea yet if there will be any
impact from batching the pages on pagevecs, vs. an atomic
mlock count...
--
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/