linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 1/5] mm: introduce MADV

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]

Date:   Fri, 28 Jun 2019 08:56:18 +0900
From:   Minchan Kim <minchan@...nel.org>
To:     Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>
Cc:     Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        linux-mm <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, linux-api@...r.kernel.org,
        Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
        Tim Murray <timmurray@...gle.com>,
        Joel Fernandes <joel@...lfernandes.org>,
        Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@...gle.com>,
        Daniel Colascione <dancol@...gle.com>,
        Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@...gle.com>,
        Sonny Rao <sonnyrao@...gle.com>, oleksandr@...hat.com,
        hdanton@...a.com, lizeb@...gle.com,
        "Kirill A . Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/5] mm: introduce MADV_COLD

On Thu, Jun 27, 2019 at 04:53:02PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Thu 27-06-19 07:36:50, Dave Hansen wrote:
> [...]
> > For MADV_COLD, if we defined it like this, I think we could use it for
> > both purposes (demotion and LRU movement):
> > 
> > 	Pages in the specified regions will be treated as less-recently-
> > 	accessed compared to pages in the system with similar access
> > 	frequencies.  In contrast to MADV_DONTNEED, the contents of the
> 
> you meant s@...V_DONTNEED@...V_FREE@ I suppose

Right, MADV_FREE is more proper because it's aging related.

> 
> > 	region are preserved.
> > 
> > It would be nice not to talk about reclaim at all since we're not
> > promising reclaim per se.

Your suggestion doesn't expose any implementation detail and could meet your
needs later. I'm okay. I will change it if others are not against of it.

Thanks, Dave.