linux-kernel - Re: [patch 3/3] mm: page_alloc: fair zone allocator policy

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]

Date:	Thu, 01 Aug 2013 00:31:34 -0400
From:	Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>
To:	Minchan Kim <minchan@...nel.org>
CC:	Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>,
	Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [patch 3/3] mm: page_alloc: fair zone allocator policy

On 07/31/2013 10:56 PM, Minchan Kim wrote:

> Yes, it's not really slow path because it could return to normal status
> without calling significant slow functions by reset batchcount of
> prepare_slowpath.
>
> I think it's tradeoff and I am biased your approach although we would
> lose a little performance because fair aging would recover the loss by
> fastpath's overhead. But who knows? Someone has a concern.
>
> So we should mention about such problems.

If the atomic operation in the fast path turns out to be a problem,
I suspect we may be able to fix it by using per-cpu counters, and
consolidating those every once in a while.

However, it may be good to see whether there is a problem in the
first place, before adding complexity.

-- 
All rights reversed
--
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/