linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 00/10] mm: Linux VM Infrastructure to support Memory Power Management

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20110615165321.GC23151@in.ibm.com>
Date:	Wed, 15 Jun 2011 22:23:21 +0530
From:	Ankita Garg <ankita@...ibm.com>
To:	Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>
Cc:	paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, Matthew Garrett <mjg59@...f.ucam.org>,
	Kyungmin Park <kmpark@...radead.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-pm@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
	svaidy@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, thomas.abraham@...aro.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/10] mm: Linux VM Infrastructure to support Memory
 Power Management

Hi,

On Fri, Jun 10, 2011 at 08:02:33PM -0700, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> On Fri, 10 Jun 2011 12:37:13 -0700
> "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> 
> > On Fri, Jun 10, 2011 at 08:23:29PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> > > On Fri, Jun 10, 2011 at 11:47:38AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > 
> > > > And if I understand you correctly, then the patches that Ankita
> > > > posted should help your self-refresh case, along with the
> > > > originally intended the power-down case and special-purpose use
> > > > of memory case.
> > > 
> > > Yeah, I'd hope so once we actually have capable hardware.
> > 
> > Cool!!!
> > 
> > So Ankita's patchset might be useful to you at some point, then.
> > 
> > Does it look like a reasonable implementation?
> 
> as someone who is working on hardware that is PASR capable right now,
> I have to admit that our plan was to just hook into the buddy allocator,
> and use PASR on the top level of buddy (eg PASR off blocks that are
> free there, and PASR them back on once an allocation required the block
> to be broken up)..... that looked the very most simple to me.
> 

The maximum order in buddy allocator is by default 1k pages. Isn't this
too small a granularity to track blocks that might comprise a PASR unit? 

> Maybe something much more elaborate is needed, but I didn't see why so
> far.
> 
> 

-- 
Regards,
Ankita Garg (ankita@...ibm.com)
Linux Technology Center
IBM India Systems & Technology Labs,
Bangalore, India
--
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/