linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 0/2] mm: remove the memory isolate notifier

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Mon, 09 Dec 2019 22:15:28 +1100
From:   Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>
To:     David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:     linux-mm@...ck.org, linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org,
        Alexander Duyck <alexander.h.duyck@...ux.intel.com>,
        Alexander Potapenko <glider@...gle.com>,
        Anshuman Khandual <anshuman.khandual@....com>,
        Arun KS <arunks@...eaurora.org>,
        Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Mel Gorman <mgorman@...hsingularity.net>,
        Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>,
        Mike Rapoport <rppt@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        Oscar Salvador <osalvador@...e.de>,
        Pavel Tatashin <pasha.tatashin@...een.com>,
        Pingfan Liu <kernelfans@...il.com>, Qian Cai <cai@....pw>,
        "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>,
        Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
        Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>,
        Wei Yang <richardw.yang@...ux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/2] mm: remove the memory isolate notifier

David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com> writes:
> On 14.11.19 14:19, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>> This is the MM part of
>> 	https://lkml.org/lkml/2019/10/31/487
>> 
>> "We can get rid of the memory isolate notifier by switching to balloon
>> compaction in powerpc's CMM (Collaborative Memory Management). The memory
>> isolate notifier was only necessary to allow to offline memory blocks that
>> contain inflated/"loaned" pages - which also possible when the inflated
>> pages are movable (via balloon compaction). [...]"
>> 
>> Michael queued the POWERPC bits that remove the single user, but I am
>> missing ACKs for the MM bits. I think it makes sense to let these two
>> patches also go via Michael's tree, to avoid collissions. Thoughts?
>
> The prereqs (powerpc bits) are upstream - I assume Michael didn't want
> to mess with MM patches.

Yes, sorry I meant to send you a mail saying so.

cheers