linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 5/10] mm/memcg: introduce page_relock

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:	Tue, 21 Feb 2012 14:36:56 -0800 (PST)
From:	Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>
To:	KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>
cc:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Konstantin Khlebnikov <khlebnikov@...nvz.org>,
	Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
	Ying Han <yinghan@...gle.com>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/10] mm/memcg: introduce page_relock_lruvec

On Tue, 21 Feb 2012, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote:
> 
> No perforamce impact by replacing spin_lock_irq()/spin_unlock_irq() to
> spin_lock_irqsave() and spin_unlock_irqrestore() ?

None that I noticed - but that is not at all a reassuring answer!

It worries me a little.  I think it would make more or less difference
on different architectures, and I forget where x86 stands there - one
of the more or the less affected?  Worth branches down inside
page_relock_lruvec()?

It's also unfortunate to be "losing" the information of where _irq
is needed and where _irqsave (but not much gets lost with git).

It's something that can be fixed - and I think Konstantin's version
already keeps the variants: I just didn't want to get confused by them,
while focussing on the locking details.

Hugh
--
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/