linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/4] s390: get rid of superfluous __GFP

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] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20170308141110.GL11028@dhcp22.suse.cz>
Date:   Wed, 8 Mar 2017 15:11:10 +0100
From:   Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>
To:     Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@...ibm.com>
Cc:     linux-mm@...ck.org, Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>,
        Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
        Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] s390: get rid of superfluous __GFP_REPEAT

On Wed 08-03-17 09:23:40, Heiko Carstens wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 07, 2017 at 04:48:40PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>
> > 
> > __GFP_REPEAT has a rather weak semantic but since it has been introduced
> > around 2.6.12 it has been ignored for low order allocations.
> > 
> > page_table_alloc then uses the flag for a single page allocation. This
> > means that this flag has never been actually useful here because it has
> > always been used only for PAGE_ALLOC_COSTLY requests.
> > 
> > An earlier attempt to remove the flag 10d58bf297e2 ("s390: get rid of
> > superfluous __GFP_REPEAT") has missed this one but the situation is very
> > same here.
> > 
> > Cc: Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@...ibm.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>
> > ---
> >  arch/s390/mm/pgalloc.c | 2 +-
> >  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> FWIW:
> Acked-by: Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@...ibm.com>

Thanks

> If you want, this can be routed via the s390 tree, whatever you prefer.

Yes, that would be great. I suspect the rest will take longer to get
merged or land to a conclusion.

-- 
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs