linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH UPDATED 2/2] mempool: fix first round failure behavior

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: <20111222013156.GQ9213@google.com>
Date:	Wed, 21 Dec 2011 17:31:56 -0800
From:	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH UPDATED 2/2] mempool: fix first round failure behavior

On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 05:23:12PM -0800, Tejun Heo wrote:
> I see.  It just seemed like a weird behavior and looking at the commit
> log, there was originally code to kick reclaim there, so the sequence
> made sense - first try w/o reclaim, look at the mempool, kick reclaim
> and retry w/ GFP_WAIT and then wait for someone else to free.  That
> part was removed by 20a77776c24 "[PATCH] mempool: simplify alloc" back
> in 05.  In the process, it also lost retry w/ reclaim before waiting
> for mempool reserves.

Oops, it isn't that relevant but the original code retried w/ reclaim
before looking at mempool if less than half were left in the pool.

-- 
tejun
--
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/