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 PHC | |
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Tue, 9 Aug 2022 21:57:50 +0900 From: Sergey Senozhatsky <senozhatsky@...omium.org> To: Jiri Slaby <jirislaby@...nel.org> Cc: Sergey Senozhatsky <senozhatsky@...omium.org>, Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>, Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, minchan@...nel.org, ngupta@...are.org, Jan Kara <jack@...e.com>, Ted Ts'o <tytso@....edu>, Andreas Dilger <adilger.kernel@...ger.ca>, Ext4 Developers List <linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org>, avromanov@...rdevices.ru, ddrokosov@...rdevices.ru Subject: Re: ext2/zram issue [was: Linux 5.19] On (22/08/09 14:45), Jiri Slaby wrote: > On 09. 08. 22, 14:35, Jiri Slaby wrote: > > But the installer is different. It just creates memory pressure, yet, > > reclaim works well and is able to find memory and go on. I would say > > atomic vs non-atomic retry in the original (pre-5.19) approach makes the > > difference. > > Sorry, I meant no-direct-reclaim (5.19) vs direct-reclaim (pre-5.19). Sure, I understood. This somehow makes me scratch my head and ask if we really want to continue using per-CPU steams. We previously (many years ago) had a list of idle compression streams, which would do compression in preemptible context and we would have only one zs_malloc handle allocation path, which would do direct reclaim (when needed)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists