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
| ||
|
Date: Thu, 9 Sep 2010 09:32:52 -0500 (CDT) From: Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com> To: Mel Gorman <mel@....ul.ie> cc: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, Linux Kernel List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, linux-mm@...ck.org, Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>, Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>, Minchan Kim <minchan.kim@...il.com>, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] mm: page allocator: Drain per-cpu lists after direct reclaim allocation fails On Thu, 9 Sep 2010, Mel Gorman wrote: > > This will have the effect of never sending IPIs for slab allocations since > > they do not do allocations for orders > PAGE_ALLOC_COSTLY_ORDER. > > > > The question is how severe is that? There is somewhat of an expectation > that the lower orders free naturally so it the IPI justified? That said, > our historical behaviour would have looked like > > if (!page && !drained && order) { > drain_all_pages(); > draiained = true; > goto retry; > } > > Play it safe for now and go with that? I am fine with no IPIs for order <= COSTLY. Just be aware that this is a change that may have some side effects. Lets run some tests and see how it affect the issues that we are seeing. -- 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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists