linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 4/4] ring-buffer: only allocate buffers for online cpus

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <20090313083919.43CB.A69D9226@jp.fujitsu.com>
Date:	Fri, 13 Mar 2009 08:47:48 +0900 (JST)
From:	KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>
To:	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Cc:	kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
	Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@...el.com>,
	Pierre Ossman <drzeus@...eus.cx>, Pekka Paalanen <pq@....fi>,
	Steven Rostedt <srostedt@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/4] ring-buffer: only allocate buffers for online cpus

> > I don't like this patch.
> > your [1/4] and [2/4] already solve Pierre's problem.
> > 
> > using online cpu (not possible cpu) increase performance overhead 
> > and messiness.
> > but nobody get benefit ;)
> 
> Well, the fact that you can have 15 buffers for non existent CPUs is a big 
> benefit. And the overhead was only on the read side, not the write, and 
> very limited in overhead for that matter.
> 
> But, looking at this, I realized I can get rid of all the 
> "get_online_cpus". I originally had the CPU_DOWN_PREPARE remove the 
> buffer. But I found it highly annoying during tests, that I lose my data 
> when I brought down a CPU. Thus, I removed the code to free the buffer and 
> replaced it with the comment explaining this.
> 
> The get_online_cpus is to prevent the race where we might remove a buffer. 
> But since we do not do that anymore, those get_online_cpus are pretty 
> useless.
> 
> I'll update the code in a bit.

Great!

from mission critical area view, CPU down event is very important.
I don't hope to lost trace data of downed cpu.
and no get_online_cpus() don't cause annoy overhead.

I love to see your next patch :)


--
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/