Re: PATCH 2.3.26: kmalloc GFP_ZEROt

yodaiken@chelm.cs.nmt.edu
Tue, 9 Nov 1999 16:35:28 -0700


On Wed, Nov 10, 1999 at 01:45:22AM +0100, Gerard Roudier wrote:
> Indeed they may be used so, but it is the actual memory that will be
> zeroed with the cache invalidating or snooping the accesses. May-be having
> some pool of zeroed memory or zeroing some memory is useful for security
> issue, but speaking of pooled or cached objects, we probably want to most
> of the time reuse constructed instances that have been stated free and
> only zero parts that need to be so. The bzero-mania does not look fine
> programming to me.

Whenever we create a process, we are obligated to provide it with
zeroed memory for security reasons. If we could optimize by eliminating
all user processes, we would not need to bzero except for I/O blocks.

> PS: If we want to be able to write zero-filled blocks to a disk without
> bzero overhead, for example, we can reserve a small amount of physical
> pages filled with zeros at startup.

Allocate a disk block. Instantiate one inode in that block. Now
write.

>

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/