linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] mm,hugetlb: compute page_size

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:   Wed, 29 Mar 2017 10:45:14 -0700
From:   Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>
To:     Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>
Cc:     Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
        mtk.manpages@...il.com, linux-mm@...ck.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Davidlohr Bueso <dbueso@...e.de>,
        khandual@...ux.vnet.ibm.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm,hugetlb: compute page_size_log properly

On Wed, Mar 29, 2017 at 10:06:25AM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Tue 28-03-17 10:54:08, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> > On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 09:55:13AM -0700, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
> > > Do we have any consensus here? Keeping SHM_HUGE_* is currently
> > > winning 2-1. If there are in fact users out there computing the
> > > value manually, then I am ok with keeping it and properly exporting
> > > it. Michal?
> > 
> > Well, let's see what it looks like to do that.  I went down the rabbit
> > hole trying to understand why some of the SHM_ flags had the same value
> > as each other until I realised some of them were internal flags, some
> > were flags to shmat() and others were flags to shmget().  Hopefully I
> > disambiguated them nicely in this patch.  I also added 8MB and 16GB sizes.
> > Any more architectures with a pet favourite huge/giant page size we
> > should add convenience defines for?
> 
> Do we actually have any users?

Yes this feature is widely used.

-Andi