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
| ||
|
Date: Wed, 7 Jan 2009 17:21:02 -0800 From: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org> To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> Cc: Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org> Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/7] V3 of the async function call patches On Wed, 7 Jan 2009 16:17:24 -0800 (PST) Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> wrote: > > > On Wed, 7 Jan 2009, Arjan van de Ven wrote: > > > > version 3 of the async function call patches > > > > * Dropped the ACPI part; it broke i surprising ways; needs a rethink > > (working with Len and co on that) > > * Included asynchronous delete() > > Ok, I pulled this, because I really do want the boot speedups and the > previous version missed the last merge window, but after booting it, > I started to worry: > > My dmesg shows: > > [ 2.264955] sd 5:0:0:0: [sdb] Write cache: enabled, read cache: > enabled, doesn't support DPO or FUA [ 2.264958] sdb:<6>Freeing > unused kernel memory: 408k freed > > Ouch. How come that "Freeing unused kernel memory" got done in the > middle of the sdb partition thing? > > There's a async_synchronize_full() there before the free_initmem(), > but I'm worrying that it just isn't working. Hmm? What am I missing? > ok this part looks funny but it's not really (and it's safe I think). The async sata thing launches another async thing (the scsi partition scan). The synchronize_full() waits for the sata to complete, but doesn't wait for things that the sata async schedules after the wait started. is this a problem? not right now, but it means we have a rule that if an async item schedules another async item, the second one cannot be __init. (which is ok right now.. scsi already had some of this async anyway). I could make the async_full() be more strict if that makes you feel better, but for this specific purpose it would be over-synchronizing. -- Arjan van de Ven Intel Open Source Technology Centre For development, discussion and tips for power savings, visit http://www.lesswatts.org -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists