linux-kernel - Re: [merged] mm-page_alloc-reset-aging-cycle-with-gfp

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, 6 Mar 2014 13:56:35 -0800
From:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>
Cc:	stable@...nel.org, riel@...hat.com, mgorman@...e.de,
	jstancek@...hat.com, linux-mm@...ck.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [merged]
 mm-page_alloc-reset-aging-cycle-with-gfp_thisnode-v2.patch removed from -mm
 tree

On Thu, 6 Mar 2014 16:49:27 -0500 Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org> wrote:

> On Thu, Mar 06, 2014 at 12:37:57PM -0800, akpm@...ux-foundation.org wrote:
> > Subject: [merged] mm-page_alloc-reset-aging-cycle-with-gfp_thisnode-v2.patch removed from -mm tree
> > To: hannes@...xchg.org,jstancek@...hat.com,mgorman@...e.de,riel@...hat.com,stable@...nel.org,mm-commits@...r.kernel.org
> > From: akpm@...ux-foundation.org
> > Date: Thu, 06 Mar 2014 12:37:57 -0800
> > 
> > 
> > The patch titled
> >      Subject: mm: page_alloc: exempt GFP_THISNODE allocations from zone fairness
> > has been removed from the -mm tree.  Its filename was
> >      mm-page_alloc-reset-aging-cycle-with-gfp_thisnode-v2.patch
> > 
> > This patch was dropped because it was merged into mainline or a subsystem tree
> 
> Would it make sense to also merge
> 
> mm-fix-gfp_thisnode-callers-and-clarify.patch
> 
> at this point?  It's not as critical as the GFP_THISNODE exemption,
> which is why I didn't tag it for stable, but it's a bugfix as well.

Changelog fail!

: GFP_THISNODE is for callers that implement their own clever fallback to
: remote nodes, and so no direct reclaim is invoked.  There are many current
: users that only want node exclusiveness but still want reclaim to make the
: allocation happen.  Convert them over to __GFP_THISNODE and update the
: documentation to clarify GFP_THISNODE semantics.

what bug does it fix and what are the user-visible effects??
--
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/