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, 4 May 2011 13:10:21 -0700 (PDT)
From:	David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>
To:	Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.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

On Wed, 4 May 2011, Andi Kleen wrote:

> >  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.
> 

Completely agreed, I think that's how it should be patched instead of only 
touching the alloc_pages() allocation; we care much more about local node 
than whether we're using vmalloc.
--
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/