linux-kernel - Re: Unending loop in __alloc_pages_slowpath following OOM-kill; rfc: patch.

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: <4DDB74F7.9020109@jp.fujitsu.com>
Date:	Tue, 24 May 2011 18:05:59 +0900
From:	KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>
To:	mgorman@...e.de
CC:	minchan.kim@...il.com, abarry@...y.com, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
	linux-mm@...ck.org, riel@...hat.com, hannes@...xchg.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Unending loop in __alloc_pages_slowpath following OOM-kill; rfc:
 patch.

>>> Why?
>>
>> Otherwise, we don't have good PCP dropping trigger. Big machine might have
>> big pcp cache.
>>
> 
> Big machines also have a large cost for sending IPIs.

Yes. But it's only matter if IPIs are frequently happen.
But, drain_all_pages() is NOT only IPI source. some vmscan function (e.g.
try_to_umap) makes a lot of IPIs.

Then, it's _relatively_ not costly. I have a question. Do you compare which
operation and drain_all_pages()? IOW, your "costly" mean which scenario suspect?




--
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/