| 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: <20130408135739.a373580e624def371b542df5@linux-foundation.org> Date: Mon, 8 Apr 2013 13:57:39 -0700 From: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org> To: Andrew Shewmaker <agshew@...il.com> Cc: linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk, simon.jeons@...il.com, ric.masonn@...il.com Subject: Re: [PATCH v8 3/3] mm: reinititalise user and admin reserves if memory is added or removed On Mon, 8 Apr 2013 15:07:38 -0400 Andrew Shewmaker <agshew@...il.com> wrote: > This patch alters the admin and user reserves of the previous patches > in this series when memory is added or removed. > > If memory is added and the reserves have been eliminated or increased above > the default max, then we'll trust the admin. > > If memory is removed and there isn't enough free memory, then we > need to reset the reserves. > > Otherwise keep the reserve set by the admin. > > The reserve reset code is the same as the reserve initialization code. > > Does this sound reasonable to other people? I figured that hot removal > with too large of memory in the reserves was the most important case > to get right. > > I tested hot addition and removal by triggering it via sysfs. The reserves > shrunk when they were set high and memory was removed. They were reset > higher when memory was added again. I have added your Signed-off-by: to my copy of this patch. -- 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