linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] Allocate memory cgroup structures in local nodes

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:	Wed, 04 May 2011 13:04:33 -0700
From:	Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>
To:	David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>
CC:	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
	Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.cz>,
	Dave Hansen <dave@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Balbir Singh <balbir@...ibm.com>,
	Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Allocate memory cgroup structures in local nodes


> Before that's considered, the order of the arguments to
> alloc_pages_exact_node() needs to be fixed.

Good point. I'll send another one.

This is really misleading BTW. Grumble.  Maybe it would be actually 
better to
change the prototype too.


>  The vmalloc_node() calls ensure that the nid is actually set in
>N_HIGH_MEMORY and fails otherwise (we don't fallback to using vmalloc()),
>so it looks like the failures for alloc_pages_exact_node() and
>vmalloc_node() would be different?  Why do we want to fallback for one and
>not the other?

The right order would be to try everything (alloc_pages + vmalloc)
to get it node local, before trying everything else. Right now that's
not how it's done.

-Andi



--
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/