| 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
| ||
|
Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2006 19:03:22 -0400 From: Jeff Moyer <jmoyer@...hat.com> To: Zach Brown <zach.brown@...cle.com> Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] dio: lock refcount operations ==> Regarding Re: [PATCH] dio: lock refcount operations; Zach Brown <zach.brown@...cle.com> adds: >> I don't believe that this can happen. zach.brown> Yeah, I think my brain made the leap to spurious wake-ups from zach.brown> hashed wait queues. Which aren't being used :). As long as zach.brown> it's a private wait queue and sleeps and sleeps with zach.brown> UNINTERRUPTIBLE it seems ok. zach.brown> Do you think the cleanup shouldn't be done? It seems easier to zach.brown> understand after the patch, and makes dio_await_one() pretty zach.brown> darn straight forward. The patch looks sane to me, and I appreciate all of your comments in the code. zach.brown> The addition of the interrupt masking spin lock acquiry in zach.brown> dio_bio_submit() looks alarming. This lock acquiry existed in zach.brown> that path before the recent dio completion patch set. We zach.brown> shouldn't expect significant performance regression from zach.brown> returning to the behaviour that existed before the completion zach.brown> clean up work. Are you going to quantify this at all? I think we should. -Jeff - 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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists