[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <91caed46-6437-a137-0dbc-dadd113f8d58@linux.alibaba.com>
Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2018 14:52:43 -0700
From: Yang Shi <yang.shi@...ux.alibaba.com>
To: David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>
Cc: "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill@...temov.name>, hughd@...gle.com,
aaron.lu@...el.com, akpm@...ux-foundation.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: thp: remove use_zero_page sysfs knob
On 7/23/18 1:31 PM, David Rientjes wrote:
> On Fri, 20 Jul 2018, Yang Shi wrote:
>
>> I agree to keep it for a while to let that security bug cool down, however, if
>> there is no user anymore, it sounds pointless to still keep a dead knob.
>>
> It's not a dead knob. We use it, and for reasons other than
> CVE-2017-1000405. To mitigate the cost of constantly compacting memory to
> allocate it after it has been freed due to memry pressure, we can either
> continue to disable it, allow it to be persistently available, or use a
> new value for use_zero_page to specify it should be persistently
> available.
My understanding is the cost of memory compaction is *not* unique for
huge zero page, right? It is expected when memory pressure is met, even
though huge zero page is disabled.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists