linux-kernel - Re: [RFC] propagate gfp_t to page table alloc functions

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: <4F973FB8.6050103@jp.fujitsu.com>
Date:	Wed, 25 Apr 2012 09:05:12 +0900
From:	KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>
To:	KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>
CC:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Nick Piggin <npiggin@...il.com>,
	Minchan Kim <minchan@...nel.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, x86@...nel.org,
	Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>,
	Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
	Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>, Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org
Subject: Re: [RFC] propagate gfp_t to page table alloc functions

(2012/04/25 8:55), KOSAKI Motohiro wrote:

> On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 7:49 PM, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
> <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com> wrote:
>> (2012/04/25 6:30), Andrew Morton wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, 24 Apr 2012 17:48:29 +1000
>>> Nick Piggin <npiggin@...il.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Hmm, there are several places to use GFP_NOIO and GFP_NOFS even, GFP_ATOMIC.
>>>>> I believe it's not trivial now.
>>>>
>>>> They're all buggy then. Unfortunately not through any real fault of their own.
>>>
>>> There are gruesome problems in block/blk-throttle.c (thread "mempool,
>>> percpu, blkcg: fix percpu stat allocation and remove stats_lock").  It
>>> wants to do an alloc_percpu()->vmalloc() from the IO submission path,
>>> under GFP_NOIO.
>>>
>>> Changing vmalloc() to take a gfp_t does make lots of sense, although I
>>> worry a bit about making vmalloc() easier to use!
>>>
>>> I do wonder whether the whole scheme of explicitly passing a gfp_t was
>>> a mistake and that the allocation context should be part of the task
>>> context.  ie: pass the allocation mode via *current.
>>
>> yes...that's very interesting.
> 
> I think GFP_ATOMIC is used non task context too. ;-)

Hmm, in interrupt context or some ? Can't we detect it ?

Thanks,
-Kame

 



--
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/