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
| ||
|
Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2019 16:15:50 +0100 From: Oscar Salvador <osalvador@...e.de> To: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org> Cc: Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@...cle.com>, akpm@...ux-foundation.org, david@...hat.com, anthony.yznaga@...cle.com, linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm,memory_hotplug: Explicitly pass the head to isolate_huge_page On Wed, Feb 13, 2019 at 01:33:39PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote: > Why isn't our check in has_unmovable_pages sufficient? Taking a closer look, it should be enough. I was mainly confused by the fact that if the zone is ZONE_MOVABLE, we do not keep checking in has_unmovable_pages(): if (zone_idx(zone) == ZONE_MOVABLE) continue; But I overlooked that htlb_alloc_mask() checks whether the allocation cand end up in a movable zone. hugepage_movable_supported() checks that and if the hstate does not support migration at all, we skip __GFP_MOVABLE. So I think that the check in has_unmovable_pages() should be more than enough, so we could strip the checks from do_migrate_ranges() and scan_movable_pages() regarding hugepage migratability. I will run some tests just to make sure this holds and then I will send a patch. Thanks -- Oscar Salvador SUSE L3
Powered by blists - more mailing lists