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: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0708141444590.32110@schroedinger.engr.sgi.com>
Date:	Tue, 14 Aug 2007 14:48:31 -0700 (PDT)
From:	Christoph Lameter <clameter@....com>
To:	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
cc:	linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC 4/9] Atomic reclaim: Save irq flags in vmscan.c

On Tue, 14 Aug 2007, Andi Kleen wrote:

> > But that still creates lots of overhead each time we take the lru lock!
> 
> A lot of overhead in what way? Setting a flag in a cache hot
> per CPU data variable shouldn't be more than a few cycles.

Could you be a bit more specific? Where do you want to place the data?

What we are talking about is

atomic_inc(&zone->reclaim_cpu[smp_processor_id()]);
smp_wmb();
spin_lock(&zone->lru_lock);

....

spin_unlock(&zone_lru_lock);
smp_wmb();
atomic_dec(&zone->reclaim_cpu[smp_processor_id()]);

That is not light weight.

-
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/