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: <20140422173726.738d0635@redhat.com>
Date:	Tue, 22 Apr 2014 17:37:26 -0400
From:	Luiz Capitulino <lcapitulino@...hat.com>
To:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:	linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	mtosatti@...hat.com, aarcange@...hat.com, mgorman@...e.de,
	andi@...stfloor.org, davidlohr@...com, rientjes@...gle.com,
	isimatu.yasuaki@...fujitsu.com, yinghai@...nel.org,
	riel@...hat.com, n-horiguchi@...jp.nec.com, kirill@...temov.name
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 0/5] hugetlb: add support gigantic page allocation at
 runtime

On Thu, 17 Apr 2014 16:01:10 -0700
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:

> On Thu, 10 Apr 2014 13:58:40 -0400 Luiz Capitulino <lcapitulino@...hat.com> wrote:
> 
> > The HugeTLB subsystem uses the buddy allocator to allocate hugepages during
> > runtime. This means that hugepages allocation during runtime is limited to
> > MAX_ORDER order. For archs supporting gigantic pages (that is, page sizes
> > greater than MAX_ORDER), this in turn means that those pages can't be
> > allocated at runtime.
> 
> Dumb question: what's wrong with just increasing MAX_ORDER?

To be honest I'm not a buddy allocator expert and I'm not familiar with
what is involved in increasing MAX_ORDER. What I do know though is that it's
not just a matter of increasing a macro's value. For example, for sparsemem
support we have this check (include/linux/mmzone.h:1084):

#if (MAX_ORDER - 1 + PAGE_SHIFT) > SECTION_SIZE_BITS
#error Allocator MAX_ORDER exceeds SECTION_SIZE
#endif

I _guess_ it's because we can't allocate more pages than what's within a
section on sparsemem. Can sparsemem and the other stuff be changed to
accommodate a bigger MAX_ORDER? I don't know. Is it worth it to increase
MAX_ORDER and do all the required changes, given that a bigger MAX_ORDER is
only useful for HugeTLB and the archs supporting gigantic pages? I'd guess not.
--
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

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ