linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 00/25] Page folios

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: <20210315134508.GX2577561@casper.infradead.org>
Date:   Mon, 15 Mar 2021 13:45:08 +0000
From:   Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>
To:     "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill@...temov.name>
Cc:     Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 00/25] Page folios

On Mon, Mar 15, 2021 at 02:55:01PM +0300, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
> I'm with Matthew on this. I would really want to drop the number of places
> where we call compoud_head(). I hope we can get rid of the page flag
> policy hack I made.

I can't see that far ahead too clearly, but I do think that at some
point we'll actually distinguish between folio flags and page flags.
For example, we won't have a FolioHWPoison, because we won't keep a folio
together if one page in it has become defective.  Nor will we have a
PageUptodate because we'll only care about whether a folio is uptodate.
And at that point, we won't want page flag policies.