| 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: Tue, 15 Sep 2015 14:41:57 -0400 From: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org> To: James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...senPartnership.com> Cc: Lee Duncan <lduncan@...e.com>, linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Hannes Reinecke <hare@...e.com>, Johannes Thumshirn <jthumshirn@...e.de>, Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org> Subject: Re: [PATCH 01/17] Add ida and idr helper routines. Hello, On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 11:38:42AM -0700, James Bottomley wrote: > For most of the SCSI stuff, yes. I'm less sure about the sd numbers. > They go up very high and get hammered a lot during system bring up and > hot plug. I think having their own lock rather than wrapping everything > around simple_ida_lock makes more sense here just because the system is > heavily contended on getting indexes at bring up. > > To continue the thought, why not move simple_ida_lock into struct ida so > we don't have to worry about the contention and can sue ida_simple_... > everywhere? We sure can do that if necessary but I'm rather doubtful that even with sd number hammering this is likely to be a problem. Let's convert the users to the simple interface and make the lock per-ida if we actually see contention on the lock. 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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists