On Wednesday 31 October 2007 21:42, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Wed, 2007-10-31 at 14:37 +1100, Nick Piggin wrote:
> > On Wednesday 31 October 2007 03:04, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > Restrict objects from reserve slabs (ALLOC_NO_WATERMARKS) to allocation
> > > contexts that are entitled to it.
> > >
> > > Care is taken to only touch the SLUB slow path.
> > >
> > > This is done to ensure reserve pages don't leak out and get consumed.
> >
> > I think this is generally a good idea (to prevent slab allocators
> > from stealing reserve). However I naively think the implementation
> > is a bit overengineered and thus has a few holes.
> >
> > Humour me, what was the problem with failing the slab allocation
> > (actually, not fail but just call into the page allocator to do
> > correct waiting / reclaim) in the slowpath if the process fails the
> > watermark checks?
>
> Ah, we actually need slabs below the watermarks.
Right, I'd still allow those guys to allocate slabs. Provided they
have the right allocation context, right?
> Its just that once I
> allocated those slabs using __GFP_MEMALLOC/PF_MEMALLOC I don't want
> allocation contexts that do not have rights to those pages to walk off
> with objects.
And I'd prevent these ones from doing so.
Without keeping track of "reserve" pages, which doesn't feel
too clean.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
