linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] bdi: Move cgroup bdi_writeback to a dedicated low concurrency workqueue

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:   Wed, 23 May 2018 16:17:36 -0700
From:   Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To:     Rik van Riel <riel@...riel.com>
Cc:     Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        Jan Kara <jack@...e.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, kernel-team@...com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] bdi: Move cgroup bdi_writeback to a dedicated low
 concurrency workqueue

Hello, Rik.

On Wed, May 23, 2018 at 06:03:15PM -0400, Rik van Riel wrote:
> Dumb question.  Does setting max_active to 1 mean
> that every cgwb_release_workfn() ends up forcing
> another RCU grace period on the whole system, while
> today you might have a bunch of them waiting on the
> same RCU grace period advance?
> 
> Would it be faster to have some number (up to 16?)
> push RCU once, at the same time, instead of having
> each of them push RCU into a next grace period one
> after another?

Oh yeah, you're absolutely right.  This would end up doing a lot of
back-to-back synchronize_rcu_expedited() calls which can't be good.
I'll send a patch to push it upto 16.

Thanks.

-- 
tejun