linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 3/5] zram: use zram_slot_lock instead of raw bit_spin

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, 3 Apr 2017 17:06:32 +0900
From:   Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky.work@...il.com>
To:     Minchan Kim <minchan@...nel.org>
Cc:     Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky.work@...il.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@...il.com>,
        kernel-team@....com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/5] zram: use zram_slot_lock instead of raw
 bit_spin_lock op

On (04/03/17 15:34), Minchan Kim wrote:
[..]
> > c) spin_locks probably have better fairness guarantees
> 
> In fact, it wouldn't be an imporant because zram's slot lock contention
> is not heavy.

mostly agree. I think (and I may be mistaken) direct IO
causes contention; but direct IO is probably not a usual
zram workload.

> > what do you think? can we, in this patch set, also replce bit
> > spin_locks with a normal spin_lock?
> 
> With changing only zram side from bit_spin_lock to spin_lock,
> it would be crippled. I mean zsmalloc should be changed, too
> and it's really hard. :(

hm, good point.

	-ss