netdev - Re: [PATCH v6 2/6] PM / Runtime: introduce pm_runtime_set_memalloc

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, 28 Nov 2012 11:15:05 +0100
From:	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>
To:	Ming Lei <ming.lei@...onical.com>
Cc:	linux-pm@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>,
	Oliver Neukum <oneukum@...e.de>,
	Minchan Kim <minchan@...nel.org>,
	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
	Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>,
	"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-usb@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-mm@...ck.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 2/6] PM / Runtime: introduce pm_runtime_set_memalloc_noio()

On Wednesday, November 28, 2012 05:47:18 PM Ming Lei wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 5:29 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@...k.pl> wrote:
> >
> > But it doesn't have to walk the children.  Moreover, with counters it only
> 
> Yeah, I got it, it is the advantage of counter, but with extra 'int'
> field introduced
> in 'struct device'.
> 
> > needs to walk the whole path if all devices in it need to be updated.  For
> > example, if you call pm_runtime_set_memalloc_noio(dev, true) for a device
> > whose parent's counter is greater than zero already, you don't need to
> > walk the path above the parent.
> 
> We still can do it with the flag only, pm_runtime_set_memalloc_noio(dev, true)
> can return immediately if one parent or the 'dev' flag is true.
> 
> But considered that the pm_runtime_set_memalloc_noio(dev, false) is only
> called in a very infrequent path(network/block device->remove()), looks the
> introduced cost isn't worthy of the obtained advantage.
> 
> So could you accept not introducing counter? and I will update with the
> above improvement you suggested.

Well, please see my other message I sent a while ago. :-)

Thanks,
Rafael


-- 
I speak only for myself.
Rafael J. Wysocki, Intel Open Source Technology Center.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html