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
| ||
|
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 2015 12:56:37 +0900 From: Minchan Kim <minchan@...nel.org> To: Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky.work@...il.com> Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, Kyeongdon Kim <kyeongdon.kim@....com>, ngupta@...are.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] zram: try vmalloc() after kmalloc() On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 10:06:22AM +0900, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote: > On (11/24/15 09:35), Minchan Kim wrote: > [..] > > > We can use __GFP_RECLAIM (used to be __GFP_WAIT). That permits the > > > allocation to wait for in-flight IO to complete and to reclaim clean > > > pagecache. > > > > Generally, you're right but in case of zram, it would be unfortunate. > > > > It would be void *most of time* because it is called in reclaim context > > and reclaim path bails out to avoid recursion of direct reclaim > > by PF_MEMALLOC without trying reclaim. > > However, the reason I said *most of time* is we has another context > > the funcion could be called. > > > > "disksize_store"->zcomp_create > > > > In the place, we should make sure the successful allocation to work > > zram at least so that path should use another gfp. > > I will work for that. > > Hm... is it really worth it? passing a bool to zcomp_strm_alloc() (so > it can decide what gfp flags to use) or gfp flags directly is just a > bit complicated. what's the problem with GFP_NOIO (__GFP_RECLAIM) in > the first place (sorry if I'm missing something terribly obvious)? No, you didn't miss anything and your question is really proper. Actually, I was on same page with you but when I think more, I guess it makes code looks clean and right way for structuring, IMO. So, I coded now and am preasure with it. I hope you are on same page when you look at new patchset. :) > > alternatively, we can just remove the 'dynamic' streams allocation part > and allocate all of the streams via sysfs store path only. Hmm, I don't think it's really trouble part we cannot fix easily so let's stay with it! > > -ss -- Kind regards, Minchan Kim -- 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