linux-kernel - Re: [patch]block: fix ioc locking warning

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]

Date:	Mon, 6 Feb 2012 16:59:00 -0800
From:	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To:	Shaohua Li <shaohua.li@...el.com>
Cc:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@...hat.com>, Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>,
	lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Knut Petersen <Knut_Petersen@...nline.de>, mroos@...ux.ee
Subject: Re: [patch]block: fix ioc locking warning

On Tue, Feb 07, 2012 at 08:43:50AM +0800, Shaohua Li wrote:
> Quite simple, copy kernel source to tmpfs in tight memory environment.
> This will trigger swap. The bisection result appears stable.

Looked through the commit again but it really doesn't change fast
paths.  The only paths which can be slower are ioc and q exits.  Can
you please do the followings?

* Share the script used for microbench.  Maybe it somehow exposes
  slower exit path?  How much regression are we talking about?

* Test with the this_q != locked_q trylock patch.

Thanks.

-- 
tejun
--
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/