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, 6 Feb 2014 15:58:17 -0800 (PST)
From:	David Rientjes <>
To:	Andrew Morton <>
cc:	Raghavendra K T <>,
	Fengguang Wu <>,
	David Cohen <>,
	Al Viro <>,
	Damien Ramonda <>,
	Jan Kara <>, Linus <>,,
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH V5] mm readahead: Fix readahead fail for no local
 memory and limit readahead pages

On Thu, 6 Feb 2014, David Rientjes wrote:

> > > > > +#define MAX_REMOTE_READAHEAD   4096UL

> Normally it wouldn't matter because there's no significant downside to it 
> racing, things like mempolicies which use numa_node_id() extensively would 
> result in, oops, a page allocation on the wrong node.
> This stands out to me, though, because you're expecting the calculation to 
> be correct for a specific node.
> The patch is still wrong, though, it should just do
> 	int node = ACCESS_ONCE(numa_mem_id());
> 	return min(nr, (node_page_state(node, NR_INACTIVE_FILE) +
> 		        node_page_state(node, NR_FREE_PAGES)) / 2);
> since we want to readahead based on the cpu's local node, the comment 
> saying we're reading ahead onto "remote memory" is wrong since a 
> memoryless node has local affinity to numa_mem_id().

Oops, forgot about the MAX_REMOTE_READAHEAD which needs to be factored in 
as well, but this handles the bound on local node's statistics.
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

Powered by blists - more mailing lists