linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH -v2 1/2] mm, swap: Use kvzalloc to allocate some swap data structure

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: <20170403081522.GE24661@dhcp22.suse.cz>
Date:   Mon, 3 Apr 2017 10:15:23 +0200
From:   Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>
To:     "Huang, Ying" <ying.huang@...el.com>
Cc:     Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
        John Hubbard <jhubbard@...dia.com>,
        David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>, Shaohua Li <shli@...nel.org>,
        Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
        Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com>,
        Mel Gorman <mgorman@...hsingularity.net>,
        Aaron Lu <aaron.lu@...el.com>,
        Gerald Schaefer <gerald.schaefer@...ibm.com>,
        "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>,
        Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
        Vegard Nossum <vegard.nossum@...cle.com>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH -v2 1/2] mm, swap: Use kvzalloc to allocate some swap
 data structure

On Sat 01-04-17 12:47:56, Huang, Ying wrote:
> Hi, Michal,
> 
> Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org> writes:
> 
> > On Fri 24-03-17 06:56:10, Dave Hansen wrote:
> >> On 03/24/2017 12:33 AM, John Hubbard wrote:
> >> > There might be some additional information you are using to come up with
> >> > that conclusion, that is not obvious to me. Any thoughts there? These
> >> > calls use the same underlying page allocator (and I thought that both
> >> > were subject to the same constraints on defragmentation, as a result of
> >> > that). So I am not seeing any way that kmalloc could possibly be a
> >> > less-fragmenting call than vmalloc.
> >> 
> >> You guys are having quite a discussion over a very small point.
> >> 
> >> But, Ying is right.
> >> 
> >> Let's say we have a two-page data structure.  vmalloc() takes two
> >> effectively random order-0 pages, probably from two different 2M pages
> >> and pins them.  That "kills" two 2M pages.
> >> 
> >> kmalloc(), allocating two *contiguous* pages, is very unlikely to cross
> >> a 2M boundary (it theoretically could).  That means it will only "kill"
> >> the possibility of a single 2M page.  More 2M pages == less fragmentation.
> >
> > Yes I agree with this. And the patch is no brainer. kvmalloc makes sure
> > to not try too hard on the kmalloc side so I really didn't get the
> > objection about direct compaction and reclaim which initially started
> > this discussion. Besides that the swapon path usually happens early
> > during the boot where we should have those larger blocks available.
> 
> Could I add your Acked-by for this patch?

Yes but please add the reasoning pointed out by Dave. As the patch
doesn't give any numbers and it would be fairly hard to add some without
artificial workloads we should at least document our current thinking
so that we can revisit it later.

Thanks!

Acked-by: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>

-- 
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs