linux-kernel - Re: [RFC/PATCH v2] mm: Introduce 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]

Date:	Fri, 08 May 2009 17:23:00 +0300
From:	Pekka Enberg <penberg@...helsinki.fi>
To:	Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>
Cc:	Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@...il.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, mingo@...e.hu,
	mel@....ul.ie, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, riel@...hat.com,
	rientjes@...gle.com, xemul@...nvz.org
Subject: Re: [RFC/PATCH v2] mm: Introduce GFP_PANIC for non-failing
 allocations

On Fri, 8 May 2009, Pekka Enberg wrote:
> > +#define GFP_PANIC	(__GFP_NOFAIL | __GFP_NORETRY | __GFP_NOMEMALLOC)

On Fri, 2009-05-08 at 10:20 -0400, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> So this means not retrying the allocation a couple of times? Not delving
> into reserve pools? Such behavior is good for a allocation that causes a
> panic if it fails?

If you do GFP_KERNEL|GFP_PANIC, we will cond_resched() and retry if we
made some progress. So yes, I think the behavior is good for early-boot
call-sites that can't really fail anyway.

			Pekka

--
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/