linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/2] resource: add walk_system_ram_res

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:   Fri, 23 Mar 2018 13:06:20 -0700
From:   Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To:     Baoquan He <bhe@...hat.com>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kexec@...ts.infradead.org,
        takahiro.akashi@...aro.org, ebiederm@...ssion.com,
        vgoyal@...hat.com, dyoung@...hat.com, prudo@...ux.vnet.ibm.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] resource: add walk_system_ram_res_rev()

On Fri, 23 Mar 2018 11:10:13 +0800 Baoquan He <bhe@...hat.com> wrote:

> On 03/22/18 at 07:06pm, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > On Fri, 23 Mar 2018 08:58:45 +0800 Baoquan He <bhe@...hat.com> wrote:
> > 
> > > > erk, this is pretty nasty.  Isn't there a better way :(
> > > 
> > > Yes, this is not efficient.
> > > 
> > > In struct resource{}, ->sibling list is a singly linked list. I ever
> > > thought about changing it to doubly linked list, yet not very sure if
> > > it will have effect since struct resource is a core data structure.
> > 
> > Switching to a list_head sounds OK.  The only issue really is memory
> > consumption and surely we don't have tens of thousands of struct
> > resources floating about(?).  Or if we do have a lot, the machine is
> > presumably huge (hope?).
> 
> Yes. It doubles the memory consumption.
> 
> AFAIK, the biggest number of resrouces I heard of possibly is mentioned
> in this user space kexec_tools commit. In this commit, Xunlei told on
> SGI system with 64TB RAM, the array which we have been using to store
> "System RAM"|"Reserved"|"ACPI **" regions is not big enough. In that
> case, we need extra 8Byte*2048=16KB at most. With my understanding, this
> increase is system wide, since each resource instance only needs its own
> list_head member, right?

Yes.  That sounds perfectly acceptable.

It would be interesting to see what this approach looks like, if you
have time to toss something together?