linux-kernel - Re: __GFP_REPEAT usage in fq_alloc

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]

Date:   Fri, 6 Jan 2017 07:39:14 -0800
From:   Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>
To:     Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>
Cc:     linux-mm@...ck.org, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: __GFP_REPEAT usage in fq_alloc_node

On Fri, Jan 6, 2017 at 7:20 AM, Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org> wrote:
>
> Hi Eric,
> I am currently checking kmalloc with vmalloc fallback users and convert
> them to a new kvmalloc helper [1]. While I am adding a support for
> __GFP_REPEAT to kvmalloc [2] I was wondering what is the reason to use
> __GFP_REPEAT in fq_alloc_node in the first place. c3bd85495aef
> ("pkt_sched: fq: more robust memory allocation") doesn't mention
> anything. Could you clarify this please?
>
> Thanks!

I guess this question applies to all __GFP_REPEAT usages in net/ ?

At the time, tests on the hardware I had in my labs showed that
vmalloc() could deliver pages spread
all over the memory and that was a small penalty (once memory is
fragmented enough, not at boot time)

I guess this wont be anymore a concern if I can finish my pending work
about vmalloc() trying to get adjacent pages
https://lkml.org/lkml/2016/12/21/285

Thanks.