linux-kernel - Re: a question of split_huge

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: <20200710103318.bm2gp743lagiajao@box>
Date:   Fri, 10 Jul 2020 13:33:18 +0300
From:   "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill@...temov.name>
To:     Alex Shi <alex.shi@...ux.alibaba.com>
Cc:     Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>,
        Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
        Linux-MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: a question of split_huge_page

On Fri, Jul 10, 2020 at 12:51:58PM +0800, Alex Shi wrote:
> 
> 
> 在 2020/7/10 上午12:07, Kirill A. Shutemov 写道:
> > Right, and it's never got removed from LRU during the split. The tail
> > pages have to be added to LRU because they now separate from the tail
> > page.
> > 
> According to the explaination, looks like we could remove the code path,
> since it's never got into. (base on my v15 patchset). Any comments?

Yes. But why? It's reasonable failsafe that gives chance to recover if
something goes wrong.

-- 
 Kirill A. Shutemov