linux-kernel - Re: [RFC v2 0/5] introduce gcma

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

Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.10.1502260119210.23105@hxeon>
Date:	Thu, 26 Feb 2015 01:47:06 +0900 (KST)
From:	SeongJae Park <sj38.park@...il.com>
To:	Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.cz>
cc:	SeongJae Park <sj38.park@...il.com>, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
	lauraa@...eaurora.org, minchan@...nel.org,
	sergey.senozhatsky@...il.com, linux-mm@...ck.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC v2 0/5] introduce gcma



On Wed, 25 Feb 2015, Michal Hocko wrote:

> On Wed 25-02-15 14:31:08, SeongJae Park wrote:
>> Hello Michal,
>>
>> Thanks for your comment :)
>>
>> On Tue, 24 Feb 2015, Michal Hocko wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue 24-02-15 04:54:18, SeongJae Park wrote:
>>> [...]
>>>> include/linux/cma.h  |    4 +
>>>> include/linux/gcma.h |   64 +++
>>>> mm/Kconfig           |   24 +
>>>> mm/Makefile          |    1 +
>>>> mm/cma.c             |  113 ++++-
>>>> mm/gcma.c            | 1321 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>>> 6 files changed, 1508 insertions(+), 19 deletions(-)
>>>> create mode 100644 include/linux/gcma.h
>>>> create mode 100644 mm/gcma.c
>>>
>>> Wow this is huge! And I do not see reason for it to be so big. Why
>>> cannot you simply define (per-cma area) 2-class users policy? Either via
>>> kernel command line or export areas to userspace and allow to set policy
>>> there.
>>
>> For implementation of the idea, we should develop not only policy selection,
>> but also backend for discardable memory. Most part of this patch were made
>> for the backend.
>
> What is the backend and why is it needed? I thought the discardable will
> go back to the CMA pool. I mean the cover email explained why the
> current CMA allocation policy might lead to lower success rate or
> stalls. So I would expect a new policy would be a relatively small
> change in the CMA allocation path to serve 2-class users as per policy.
> It is not clear to my why we need to pull a whole gcma layer in. I might
> be missing something obvious because I haven't looked at the patches yet
> but this should better be explained in the cover letter.

I meant backend for 2nd-class clients like cleancache and frontswap.
Because implementing backend for cleancache or frontswap is subsystem's
responsibility, gcma was needed to implement those backend. I believe
second ("gcma: utilize reserved memory as discardable memory") and
third ("gcma: adopt cleancache and frontswap as second-class
clients") could be helpful to understand about that.

And yes, I agree the explanation was not enough. My fault, sorry. My
explanation was too concentrated on policy itself. I should explained
about how the policy could be implemented and how gcma did. I will explain
about that in coverletter with next version.

Thanks for your helpful and nice comment.


Thanks,
SeongJae Park

>
> Thanks!
> -- 
> Michal Hocko
> SUSE Labs
>
--
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/