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  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]
Date:   Mon, 18 Feb 2019 09:51:33 -0800
From:   Zi Yan <>
To:     Vlastimil Babka <>
CC:     Matthew Wilcox <>, <>,
        Dave Hansen <>,
        Michal Hocko <>,
        "Kirill A . Shutemov" <>,
        Andrew Morton <>,
        Mel Gorman <>,
        John Hubbard <>,
        Mark Hairgrove <>,
        Nitin Gupta <>,
        David Nellans <>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 01/31] mm: migrate: Add exchange_pages to exchange two
 lists of pages.

On 18 Feb 2019, at 9:42, Vlastimil Babka wrote:

> On 2/18/19 6:31 PM, Zi Yan wrote:
>> The purpose of proposing exchange_pages() is to avoid allocating any 
>> new
>> page,
>> so that we would not trigger any potential page reclaim or memory
>> compaction.
>> Allocating a temporary page defeats the purpose.
> Compaction can only happen for order > 0 temporary pages. Even if you 
> used
> single order = 0 page to gradually exchange e.g. a THP, it should be 
> better than
> u64. Allocating order = 0 should be a non-issue. If it's an issue, 
> then the
> system is in a bad state and physically contiguous layout is a 
> secondary concern.

You are right if we only need to allocate one order-0 page. But this 
also means
we can only exchange two pages at a time. We need to add a lock to make 
the temporary page is used exclusively or we need to keep allocating 
temporary pages
when multiple exchange_pages() are happening at the same time.

Best Regards,
Yan Zi

Powered by blists - more mailing lists