linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/7] mmc: Don't use PF

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: <1258490826.3918.29.camel@laptop>
Date:	Tue, 17 Nov 2009 21:47:06 +0100
From:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:	Minchan Kim <minchan.kim@...il.com>
Cc:	KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>,
	Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	linux-mm <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	linux-mmc@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/7] mmc: Don't use PF_MEMALLOC

On Tue, 2009-11-17 at 21:51 +0900, Minchan Kim wrote:
> I think it's because mempool reserves memory. 
> (# of I/O issue\0 is hard to be expected.
> How do we determine mempool size of each block driver?
> For example,  maybe, server use few I/O for nand. 
> but embedded system uses a lot of I/O. 

No, you scale the mempool to the minimum amount required to make
progress -- this includes limiting the 'concurrency' when handing out
mempool objects.

If you run into such tight corners often enough to notice it, there's
something else wrong.

I fully agree with ripping out PF_MEMALLOC from pretty much everything,
including the VM, getting rid of the various abuse outside of the VM
seems like a very good start.



--
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/