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  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:	Wed, 22 Oct 2014 08:01:54 -0400
From:	Peter Hurley <>
To:	Laura Abbott <>, Hui Zhu <>,,,,,,
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4] (CMA_AGGRESSIVE) Make CMA memory be more aggressive
 about allocation

On 10/16/2014 04:55 AM, Laura Abbott wrote:
> On 10/15/2014 8:35 PM, Hui Zhu wrote:
>> In fallbacks of page_alloc.c, MIGRATE_CMA is the fallback of
>> MIGRATE_MOVABLE will use MIGRATE_CMA when it doesn't have a page in
>> order that Linux kernel want.
>> If a system that has a lot of user space program is running, for
>> instance, an Android board, most of memory is in MIGRATE_MOVABLE and
>> allocated.  Before function __rmqueue_fallback get memory from
>> MIGRATE_CMA, the oom_killer will kill a task to release memory when
>> kernel want get MIGRATE_UNMOVABLE memory because fallbacks of
>> This status is odd.  The MIGRATE_CMA has a lot free memory but Linux
>> kernel kill some tasks to release memory.
>> This patch series adds a new function CMA_AGGRESSIVE to make CMA memory
>> be more aggressive about allocation.
>> If function CMA_AGGRESSIVE is available, when Linux kernel call function
>> __rmqueue try to get pages from MIGRATE_MOVABLE and conditions allow,
>> MIGRATE_CMA will be allocated as MIGRATE_MOVABLE first.  If MIGRATE_CMA
>> doesn't have enough pages for allocation, go back to allocate memory from
>> Then the memory of MIGRATE_MOVABLE can be kept for MIGRATE_UNMOVABLE and
>> MIGRATE_RECLAIMABLE which doesn't have fallback MIGRATE_CMA.
> It's good to see another proposal to fix CMA utilization. Do you have
> any data about the success rate of CMA contiguous allocation after
> this patch series? I played around with a similar approach of using
> CMA for MIGRATE_MOVABLE allocations and found that although utilization
> did increase, contiguous allocations failed at a higher rate and were
> much slower. I see what this series is trying to do with avoiding
> allocation from CMA pages when a contiguous allocation is progress.
> My concern is that there would still be problems with contiguous
> allocation after all the MIGRATE_MOVABLE fallback has happened.

What impact does this series have on x86 platforms now that CMA is the
backup allocator for all iommu dma allocations?

Peter Hurley
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