linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] mm/vmalloc: fix numa spreading for large hash tables

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:   Tue, 19 Oct 2021 08:53:58 -0700
From:   Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@...gle.com>
To:     Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>
Cc:     Chen Wandun <chenwandun@...wei.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@...il.com>,
        Linux MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
        Kefeng Wang <wangkefeng.wang@...wei.com>, guohanjun@...wei.com,
        "Uladzislau Rezki (Sony)" <urezki@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] mm/vmalloc: fix numa spreading for large hash tables

On Mon, Oct 18, 2021 at 5:41 AM Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Oct 18, 2021 at 08:37:09PM +0800, Chen Wandun wrote:
> > Eric Dumazet reported a strange numa spreading info in [1], and found
> > commit 121e6f3258fe ("mm/vmalloc: hugepage vmalloc mappings") introduced
> > this issue [2].
>
> I think the root problem here is that we have two meanings for
> NUMA_NO_NODE.  I tend to read it as "The memory can be allocated from
> any node", but here it's used to mean "The memory should be spread over
> every node".  Should we split those out as -1 and -2?

I agree with Willy's suggestion to make it more explicit but as a
followup work. This patch needs a backport, so keep this simple.