linux-kernel - Re: [RFC 4/9] Atomic reclaim: Save irq flags in vmscan.c

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: <1187121951.5337.4.camel@lappy>
Date:	Tue, 14 Aug 2007 22:05:51 +0200
From:	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
To:	Christoph Lameter <clameter@....com>
Cc:	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Subject: Re: [RFC 4/9] Atomic reclaim: Save irq flags in vmscan.c

On Tue, 2007-08-14 at 12:12 -0700, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> On Tue, 14 Aug 2007, Andi Kleen wrote:
> 
> > Christoph Lameter <clameter@....com> writes:
> > 
> > > Reclaim can be called with interrupts disabled in atomic reclaim.
> > > vmscan.c is currently using spinlock_irq(). Switch to spin_lock_irqsave().
> > 
> > I like the idea in principle. If this fully works out we could
> > potentially keep less memory free by default which would be a good
> > thing in general: free memory is bad memory.
> 
> Right.
>  
> > But would be interesting to measure what the lock
> > changes do to interrupt latency. Probably nothing good.
> 
> Yup.
>  
> > A more benign alternative might be to just set a per CPU flag during
> > these critical sections and then only do atomic reclaim on a local
> > interrupt when the flag is not set.  That would make it a little less
> > reliable, but much less intrusive and with some luck still give many
> > of the benefits.
> 
> There are other lock interactions that may cause problems. If we do not 
> switch to the saving of irq flags then all involved spinlocks must become 
> trylocks because the interrupt could have happened while the spinlock is 
> held. So interrupts must be disabled on locks acquired during an 
> interrupt.

A much simpler approach to this seems to use threaded interrupts like
-rt does.

-
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/