linux-kernel - Re: ext2/zram issue [was: Linux 5.19]

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: <b2662600-07cd-7125-d7c3-b7bbe1bad824@kernel.org>
Date:   Tue, 9 Aug 2022 14:45:33 +0200
From:   Jiri Slaby <jirislaby@...nel.org>
To:     Sergey Senozhatsky <senozhatsky@...omium.org>
Cc:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        minchan@...nel.org, ngupta@...are.org, Jan Kara <jack@...e.com>,
        Ted Ts'o <tytso@....edu>,
        Andreas Dilger <adilger.kernel@...ger.ca>,
        Ext4 Developers List <linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org>,
        avromanov@...rdevices.ru, ddrokosov@...rdevices.ru
Subject: Re: ext2/zram issue [was: Linux 5.19]

On 09. 08. 22, 14:35, Jiri Slaby wrote:
> But the installer is different. It just creates memory pressure, yet, 
> reclaim works well and is able to find memory and go on. I would say 
> atomic vs non-atomic retry in the original (pre-5.19) approach makes the 
> difference.

Sorry, I meant no-direct-reclaim (5.19) vs direct-reclaim (pre-5.19).

-- 
js
suse labs