linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 0/6] Introduce ZONE

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: <5727069B.5070600@suse.cz>
Date:	Mon, 2 May 2016 09:49:47 +0200
From:	Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>
To:	Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@....com>,
	Mel Gorman <mgorman@...hsingularity.net>
Cc:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
	Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
	Laura Abbott <lauraa@...eaurora.org>,
	Minchan Kim <minchan@...nel.org>,
	Marek Szyprowski <m.szyprowski@...sung.com>,
	Michal Nazarewicz <mina86@...a86.com>,
	"Aneesh Kumar K.V" <aneesh.kumar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/6] Introduce ZONE_CMA

On 05/02/2016 08:14 AM, Joonsoo Kim wrote:
>>> > >Although it's separate issue, I should mentioned one thing. Related to
>>> > >I/O pinning issue, ZONE_CMA don't get blockdev allocation request so
>>> > >I/O pinning problem is much reduced.
>>> > >
>> >
>> >This is not super-clear from the patch. blockdev is using GFP_USER so it
>> >already should not be classed as MOVABLE. I could easily be looking in
>> >the wrong place or missed which allocation path sets GFP_MOVABLE.
> Okay. Please see sb_bread(), sb_getblk(), __getblk() and __bread() in
> include/linux/buffer_head.h. These are main functions used by blockdev
> and they uses GFP_MOVABLE. To fix permanent allocation case which is
> used by mount and cannot be released until umount, Gioh introduces
> sb_bread_unmovable() but there are many remaining issues that prevent
> migration at the moment and avoid blockdev allocation from CMA area is
> preferable approach.

Hm Patch 3/6 describes the lack of blockdev allocations mostly as a 
limitation, although it does mention the possible advantages later. 
Anyway, this doesn't have to be specific to ZONE_CMA, right? You could 
just change ALLOC_CMA handling to consider GFP_HIGHUSER_MOVABLE instead 
of just __GFP_MOVABLE. For ZONE_CMA it might be inevitable as you 
describe, but it's already possible to do that now, if the advantages 
are larger than the disadvantages.