linux-kernel - Re: [patch 12/21] No Reclaim LRU Infrastructure

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:	Tue, 04 Mar 2008 10:05:58 -0500
From:	Lee Schermerhorn <Lee.Schermerhorn@...com>
To:	KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>
Cc:	Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-mm@...ck.org
Subject: Re: [patch 12/21] No Reclaim LRU Infrastructure

On Tue, 2008-03-04 at 19:46 +0900, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote:
> Hi
> 
> sorry for late review.
> 
> > 
> > Index: linux-2.6.25-rc2-mm1/mm/Kconfig
> > ===================================================================
> > --- linux-2.6.25-rc2-mm1.orig/mm/Kconfig	2008-02-19 16:23:09.000000000 -0500
> > +++ linux-2.6.25-rc2-mm1/mm/Kconfig	2008-02-28 11:05:04.000000000 -0500
> > @@ -193,3 +193,13 @@ config NR_QUICK
> >  config VIRT_TO_BUS
> >  	def_bool y
> >  	depends on !ARCH_NO_VIRT_TO_BUS
> > +
> > +config NORECLAIM
> > +	bool "Track non-reclaimable pages (EXPERIMENTAL; 64BIT only)"
> > +	depends on EXPERIMENTAL && 64BIT
> 
> as far as I remembered, somebody said CONFIG_NORECLAIM is easy confusable.
> may be..
> 
> IMHO insert "lru" word is better.
> example,
> 
> config NORECLAIM_LRU
> 	bool "Zone LRU of track non-reclaimable pages (EXPERIMENTAL; 64BIT only)"
> 	depends on EXPERIMENTAL && 64BIT

OK.  But, I'd suggest the 'bool' description be something like:

config NORECLAIM_LRU
	bool "Add LRU list to track non-reclaimable pages (EXPERIMENTAL; 64BIT only)"

> 
> 
> > @@ -356,8 +380,10 @@ void release_pages(struct page **pages, 
> >  				zone = pagezone;
> >  				spin_lock_irqsave(&zone->lru_lock, flags);
> >  			}
> > -			VM_BUG_ON(!PageLRU(page));
> > -			__ClearPageLRU(page);
> > +			is_lru_page = PageLRU(page);
> > +			VM_BUG_ON(!(is_lru_page));
> > +			if (is_lru_page)
> > +				__ClearPageLRU(page);
> >  			del_page_from_lru(zone, page);
> >  		}
> 
> it seems unnecessary change??

Hmmm.  Not sure what I was thinking here.  Might be a relic of some
previous debug instrumentation.  Guess I don't have any problem with
removing this change.

Lee

--
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/