linux-kernel - Re: [RFC 2/3] mm/vmalloc: add support for __GFP

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: <YXAtYGLv/k+j6etV@dhcp22.suse.cz>
Date:   Wed, 20 Oct 2021 16:53:20 +0200
From:   Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>
To:     Uladzislau Rezki <urezki@...il.com>
Cc:     Linux Memory Management List <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
        Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>, Neil Brown <neilb@...e.de>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
        linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Ilya Dryomov <idryomov@...il.com>,
        Jeff Layton <jlayton@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC 2/3] mm/vmalloc: add support for __GFP_NOFAIL

On Wed 20-10-21 16:29:14, Uladzislau Rezki wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 20, 2021 at 4:06 PM Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com> wrote:
[...]
> > As I've said I am OK with either of the two. Do you or anybody have any
> > preference? Without any explicit event to wake up for neither of the two
> > is more than just an optimistic retry.
> >
> From power perspective it is better to have a delay, so i tend to say
> that delay is better.

I am a terrible random number generator. Can you give me a number
please?
-- 
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs