linux-kernel - Re: [patch] mm, thp: restructure thp avoidance of light synchronous migration

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.02.1407281523090.8998@chino.kir.corp.google.com>
Date:	Mon, 28 Jul 2014 15:24:22 -0700 (PDT)
From:	David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>
To:	Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>
cc:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>, Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
	Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org
Subject: Re: [patch] mm, thp: restructure thp avoidance of light synchronous
 migration

On Mon, 28 Jul 2014, Vlastimil Babka wrote:

> Looks like kind of a shotgun approach to me. A single __GFP_NO_KSWAPD bullet
> is no longer enough, so we use all the flags and hope for the best. It seems
> THP has so many flags it should be unique for now, but I wonder if there is a
> better way to say how much an allocation is willing to wait.
> 

We would have to introduce a new __GFP_FAULT bit to distinguish between 
allocations at pagefault that should not use synchronous memory compaction 
solely for this case, it's probably not worth it.
--
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/