linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 3/3] Quick vmalloc vs kmalloc fix to the case where array size is too large

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]

Message-ID: <6599ad830907141050r1e9dde98l56afd37629f749e8@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Tue, 14 Jul 2009 10:50:02 -0700
From:	Paul Menage <menage@...gle.com>
To:	Dave Hansen <dave@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc:	KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>,
	containers@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
	Benjamin Blum <bblum@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] Quick vmalloc vs kmalloc fix to the case where array 
	size is too large

On Tue, Jul 14, 2009 at 10:47 AM, Dave Hansen<dave@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
>
> How big were those allocations that were failing?  The code made it
> appear that order-2 (PAGE_SIZE*4) allocations were failing.  That's a
> bit lower than I'd expect the page allocator to start failing.

I think it depends on how much fragmentation you've got.

We've seen it fail for cpusets with (I guess) hundreds or thousands of threads.

Paul
--
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/