linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 4/6] shmem: add order parameter support to shmem_alloc

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: <ZQRL7K0rXIzD54aq@casper.infradead.org>
Date:   Fri, 15 Sep 2023 13:19:56 +0100
From:   Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>
To:     Daniel Gomez <da.gomez@...sung.com>
Cc:     "minchan@...nel.org" <minchan@...nel.org>,
        "senozhatsky@...omium.org" <senozhatsky@...omium.org>,
        "axboe@...nel.dk" <axboe@...nel.dk>,
        "djwong@...nel.org" <djwong@...nel.org>,
        "hughd@...gle.com" <hughd@...gle.com>,
        "akpm@...ux-foundation.org" <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        "mcgrof@...nel.org" <mcgrof@...nel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-block@...r.kernel.org" <linux-block@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-xfs@...r.kernel.org" <linux-xfs@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
        "gost.dev@...sung.com" <gost.dev@...sung.com>,
        Pankaj Raghav <p.raghav@...sung.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/6] shmem: add order parameter support to
 shmem_alloc_folio

On Fri, Sep 15, 2023 at 09:51:28AM +0000, Daniel Gomez wrote:
> In preparation for high order folio support for the write path, add
> order parameter when allocating a folio. This is on the write path
> when huge support is not enabled or when it is but the huge page
> allocation fails, the fallback will take advantage of this too.

>  static struct folio *shmem_alloc_and_acct_folio(gfp_t gfp, struct inode *inode,
> -		pgoff_t index, bool huge)
> +		pgoff_t index, bool huge, unsigned int *order)

I don't understand why you keep the 'huge' parameter when you could just
pass PMD_ORDER.  And I don't understand why you're passing a pointer to
the order instead of just passing the order.