| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <20110822232834.GV3162@dastard> Date: Tue, 23 Aug 2011 09:28:34 +1000 From: Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com> To: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org> Cc: Konstantin Khlebnikov <khlebnikov@...nvz.org>, linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] vmscan: fix initial shrinker size handling On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 02:30:06PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: > On Mon, 22 Aug 2011 14:17:21 +0300 > Konstantin Khlebnikov <khlebnikov@...nvz.org> wrote: > > > Shrinker function can returns -1, it means it cannot do anything without a risk of deadlock. > > For example prune_super() do this if it cannot grab superblock refrence, even if nr_to_scan=0. > > Currenly we interpret this like ULONG_MAX size shrinker, evaluate total_scan according this, > > and next time this shrinker can get really big pressure. Let's skip such shrinkers instead. > > Yes, that looks like a significant oversight. > > > Also make total_scan signed, otherwise check (total_scan < 0) below never works. > > Hopefully a smaller oversight. Yeah, it was, but is harmless because it is caught by the next check of total_scanned. I've made similar "make everything signed" changes as well. Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@...morbit.com -- 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