linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] mm: nobootmem: Correct alloc

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]

Date:	Thu, 3 May 2012 17:28:41 +0200
From:	Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>
To:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Cc:	yinghai@...nel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, tj@...nel.org,
	torvalds@...ux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: nobootmem: Correct alloc_bootmem semantics.

On Wed, Apr 25, 2012 at 07:00:34PM -0400, David Miller wrote:
> From: Yinghai Lu <yinghai@...nel.org>
> Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2012 15:46:42 -0700
> 
> > On Wed, Apr 25, 2012 at 1:10 PM, David Miller <davem@...emloft.net> wrote:
> >> @@ -298,13 +298,19 @@ void * __init __alloc_bootmem_node(pg_data_t *pgdat, unsigned long size,
> >>        if (WARN_ON_ONCE(slab_is_available()))
> >>                return kzalloc_node(size, GFP_NOWAIT, pgdat->node_id);
> >>
> >> +again:
> >>        ptr = __alloc_memory_core_early(pgdat->node_id, size, align,
> >>                                         goal, -1ULL);
> >>        if (ptr)
> >>                return ptr;
> > 
> > If you want to be consistent to bootmem version.
> > 
> > again label should be here instead.
> 
> It is merely an artifact of implementation that the bootmem version
> doesn't try to respect the given node if the goal cannot be satisfied,
> and in fact I would classify that as a bug that needs to be fixed.
> 
> Therefore, I believe the bootmem case is what needs to be adjusted
> instead.

Now it does: node+goal, goal, node, anywhere

whereas the memblock version of __alloc_bootmem_node_nopanic() also
still does: node+goal, goal, anywhere

Your description suggests that the node should be higher prioritized
than the goal, which I understand as: node+goal, node, anywhere.

Which do we actually want?
--
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/