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: <e5e39d99-2b7a-db27-5aa0-ecc8d064257b@linux.alibaba.com>
Date:   Tue, 23 Apr 2019 17:41:09 +0800
From:   王贇 <yun.wang@...ux.alibaba.com>
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:     hannes@...xchg.org, mhocko@...nel.org, vdavydov.dev@...il.com,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-mm@...ck.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 3/5] numa: introduce per-cgroup preferred numa node



On 2019/4/23 下午4:55, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 22, 2019 at 10:13:36AM +0800, 王贇 wrote:
>> diff --git a/mm/mempolicy.c b/mm/mempolicy.c
>> index af171ccb56a2..6513504373b4 100644
>> --- a/mm/mempolicy.c
>> +++ b/mm/mempolicy.c
>> @@ -2031,6 +2031,10 @@ alloc_pages_vma(gfp_t gfp, int order, struct vm_area_struct *vma,
>>
>>  	pol = get_vma_policy(vma, addr);
>>
>> +	page = alloc_page_numa_preferred(gfp, order);
>> +	if (page)
>> +		goto out;
>> +
>>  	if (pol->mode == MPOL_INTERLEAVE) {
>>  		unsigned nid;
>>
> 
> This I think is wrong, it overrides app specific mbind() requests.

The original concern is that we scared the user apps insider cgroup deal
wrong with memory policy and do bad behavior, but now I agree that we
should not override the policy, the admin will take the responsibility.

Regards,
Michael Wang

> 

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ