linux-kernel - Re: [patch 1/2] mm, page_alloc: extend kernelcore and movablecore for percent

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: <20180216160116.GA24395@bombadil.infradead.org>
Date:   Fri, 16 Feb 2018 08:01:16 -0800
From:   Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>
To:     Christopher Lameter <cl@...ux.com>
Cc:     Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>,
        David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
        Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>, Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
        linux-doc@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [patch 1/2] mm, page_alloc: extend kernelcore and movablecore
 for percent

On Fri, Feb 16, 2018 at 09:44:25AM -0600, Christopher Lameter wrote:
> On Thu, 15 Feb 2018, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> > What I was proposing was an intermediate page allocator where slab would
> > request 2MB for its own uses all at once, then allocate pages from that to
> > individual slabs, so allocating a kmalloc-32 object and a dentry object
> > would result in 510 pages of memory still being available for any slab
> > that needed it.
> 
> Well thats not really going to work since you would be mixing objects of
> different sizes which may present more fragmentation problems within the
> 2M later if they are freed and more objects are allocated.

I don't understand this response.  I'm not suggesting mixing objects
of different sizes within the same page.  The vast majority of slabs
use order-0 pages, a few use order-1 pages and larger sizes are almost
unheard of.  I'm suggesting the slab have it's own private arena of pages
that it uses for allocating pages to slabs; when an entire page comes
free in a slab, it is returned to the arena.  When the arena is empty,
slab requests another arena from the page allocator.

If you're concerned about order-0 allocations fragmenting the arena
for order-1 slabs, then we could have separate arenas for order-0 and
order-1.  But there should be no more fragmentation caused by sticking
within an arena for page allocations than there would be by spreading
slab allocations across all memory.