linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] don't use alloc_bootmem

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20090630220318.GC1241@elte.hu>
Date:	Wed, 1 Jul 2009 00:03:18 +0200
From:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To:	Jan Beulich <JBeulich@...ell.com>
Cc:	bernhard.walle@....de, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	hpa@...or.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] don't use alloc_bootmem_low() where not strictly needed


* Jan Beulich <JBeulich@...ell.com> wrote:

> Since alloc_bootmem() will never return inaccessible (via virtual 
> addressing) memory anyway, using the ..._low() variant only makes 
> sense when the physical address range of the allocated memory must 
> fulfill further constraints, espacially since on 64-bits (or more 
> generally in all cases where the pools the two variants allocate 
> from are different), the space available for ..._low() is more 
> easily exhausted than the full available range.

hm, i have some vague memories of the _low() being relevant for 
things like PAGEALLOC stability. Thomas, do you remember anything 
specific there?

	Ingo
--
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/