linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] mm: clarify why we want kmalloc before falling backto vmallock

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]

Date:   Wed, 17 May 2017 14:02:43 +0100
From:   Chris Wilson <chris@...is-wilson.co.uk>
To:     Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>
Cc:     Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: clarify why we want kmalloc before falling backto
 vmallock

subject s/vmallock/vmalloc/

On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 10:09:32AM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>
> 
> While converting drm_[cm]alloc* helpers to kvmalloc* variants Chris
> Wilson has wondered why we want to try kmalloc before vmalloc fallback
> even for larger allocations requests. Let's clarify that one larger
> physically contiguous block is less likely to fragment memory than many
> scattered pages which can prevent more large blocks from being created.
> 
> Suggested-by: Chris Wilson <chris@...is-wilson.co.uk>
> Signed-off-by: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>

It helped me understand the decisions made by the code, so
Reviewed-by: Chris Wilson <chris@...is-wilson.co.uk>
-Chris

-- 
Chris Wilson, Intel Open Source Technology Centre