linux-kernel - Re: [RFC][PATCH 2/9] deadlock prevention core

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]

Message-Id: <1155106820.23134.37.camel@lappy>
Date:	Wed, 09 Aug 2006 09:00:19 +0200
From:	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
To:	Daniel Phillips <phillips@...gle.com>
Cc:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 2/9] deadlock prevention core

On Tue, 2006-08-08 at 22:44 -0700, Daniel Phillips wrote:
> David Miller wrote:
> >From: Daniel Phillips <phillips@...gle.com>
> >>David Miller wrote:
> >>>I think the new atomic operation that will seemingly occur on every
> >>>device SKB free is unacceptable.
> >>
> >>Alternate suggestion?
> > 
> > Sorry, I have none.  But you're unlikely to get your changes
> > considered seriously unless you can avoid any new overhead your patch
> > has which is of this level.
> 
> We just skip anything new unless the socket is actively carrying block
> IO traffic, in which case we pay a miniscule price to avoid severe
> performance artifacts or in the worst case, deadlock.  So in this design
> the new atomic operation does not occur on every device SKP free.
> 
> All atomic ops sit behind the cheap test:
> 
>     (dev->flags & IFF_MEMALLOC)
> 
> or if any have escaped that is just an oversight.   Peter?

That should be so indeed. Except on the allocation path ofcourse, there
it only occurs when the first allocation fails.

> > We're busy trying to make these data structures smaller, and eliminate
> > atomic operations, as much as possible.  Therefore anything which adds
> > new datastructure elements and new atomic operations will be met with
> > fierce resistence unless it results an equal or greater shrink of
> > datastructures elsewhere or removes atomic operations elsewhere in
> > the critical path.
> 
> Right now we have a problem because our network stack cannot support
> block IO reliably.  Without that, Linux is no enterprise storage
> platform.

Indeed, surely not all wanted new features come with zero cost. If its a
hard condition that all new features remove data and operations progress
is going to be challenging.

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/