linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 4/4] zsmalloc: zsmalloc: align cache line size

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: <20120511190643.GB3785@phenom.dumpdata.com>
Date:	Fri, 11 May 2012 15:06:43 -0400
From:	Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@...cle.com>
To:	Minchan Kim <minchan@...nel.org>
Cc:	linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/4] zsmalloc: zsmalloc: align cache line size

> >> 1. zs_handle zs_malloc(size_t size, gfp_t flags) - share a pool by many subsystem(like kmalloc)
> >> 2. zs_handle zs_malloc_pool(struct zs_pool *pool, size_t size) - use own pool(like kmem_cache_alloc)
> >>
> >> Any thoughts?
> > 
> > I don't have any objections to adding this kind of
> > capability to zsmalloc.  But since we are just speculating
> > that this capability would be used by some future
> > kernel subsystem, isn't it normal kernel protocol for
> > this new capability NOT to be added until that future
> > kernel subsystem creates a need for it.
> 
> 
> Now zram makes pool per block device and a embedded system may use zram
> for several block device, ex) swap device, several compressed tmpfs
> In such case, share pool is better than private pool because embedded system
> don't mount/umount frequently on such directories since booting.
> 
> > 
> > As I said in reply to the other thread, there is missing
> > functionality in zsmalloc that is making it difficult for
> > it to be used by zcache.  It would be good if Seth
> > and Nitin (and any other kernel developers) would work
> 
> 
> So, if you guys post TODO list, it helps fix the direction.
> 
> > on those issues before adding capabilities for non-existent
> > future users of zsmalloc.
> 
> 
> I think it's not urgent than zs_handle mess.

I am having a hard time parsing that. Are you saying that
this is not as important as the zs_handle fixup? I think
that is what you meant, but what to make sure.
--
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/