linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 4/6] mm: honor PF_MEMALLOC

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Mon, 14 Dec 2020 15:17:15 +0100
From:   Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>
To:     Pavel Tatashin <pasha.tatashin@...een.com>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
        akpm@...ux-foundation.org, vbabka@...e.cz, david@...hat.com,
        osalvador@...e.de, dan.j.williams@...el.com, sashal@...nel.org,
        tyhicks@...ux.microsoft.com, iamjoonsoo.kim@....com,
        mike.kravetz@...cle.com, rostedt@...dmis.org, mingo@...hat.com,
        jgg@...pe.ca, peterz@...radead.org, mgorman@...e.de,
        willy@...radead.org, rientjes@...gle.com, jhubbard@...dia.com,
        linux-doc@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 4/6] mm: honor PF_MEMALLOC_PIN for all movable pages

On Fri 11-12-20 15:21:38, Pavel Tatashin wrote:
[...]
> diff --git a/mm/page_alloc.c b/mm/page_alloc.c
> index c2dea9ad0e98..4d8e7f801c66 100644
> --- a/mm/page_alloc.c
> +++ b/mm/page_alloc.c
> @@ -3802,16 +3802,12 @@ alloc_flags_nofragment(struct zone *zone, gfp_t gfp_mask)
>  	return alloc_flags;
>  }
>  
> -static inline unsigned int current_alloc_flags(gfp_t gfp_mask,
> -					unsigned int alloc_flags)
> +static inline unsigned int cma_alloc_flags(gfp_t gfp_mask,
> +					   unsigned int alloc_flags)

Do you have any strong reason to rename? Even though the current
implementation only does something for cma I do not think this is all
that important. The naming nicely fits with current_gfp_context so I
would stick with it.

Other than that the patch looks reasonable. I would just add a comment
explaining that current_alloc_flags should be called _after_
current_gfp_context because that one might change the gfp_mask.

With that addressed, feel free to add
Acked-by: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>

-- 
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs