linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/2] mm,vmscan: Kill global shrinker lock.

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, 20 Nov 2017 19:56:28 +0900
From:   Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.SAKURA.ne.jp>
To:     hch@...radead.org, mhocko@...nel.org
Cc:     minchan@...nel.org, ying.huang@...el.com,
        mgorman@...hsingularity.net, vdavydov.dev@...il.com,
        hannes@...xchg.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org, shakeelb@...gle.com,
        gthelen@...gle.com, linux-mm@...ck.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] mm,vmscan: Kill global shrinker lock.

Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 20, 2017 at 10:42:37AM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > The patch has been dropped because allnoconfig failed to compile back
> > then http://lkml.kernel.org/r/CAP=VYLr0rPWi1aeuk4w1On9CYRNmnEWwJgGtaX=wEvGaBURtrg@mail.gmail.com
> > I have problem to find the follow up discussion though. The main
> > argument was that SRC is not generally available and so the core
> > kernel should rely on it.
> 
> Paul,
> 
> isthere any good reason to not use SRCU in the core kernel and
> instead try to reimplement it using atomic counters?

CONFIG_SRCU was added in order to save system size. There are users who run Linux on very
small systems ( https://www.elinux.org/images/5/52/Status-of-embedded-Linux-2017-09-JJ62.pdf ).

Also, atomic counters are not mandatory for shrinker case; e.g.
http://lkml.kernel.org/r/201711161956.EBF57883.QFFMOLOVSOHJFt@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp .