linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] v3 RCU: the bloatwatch edition

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: <20090408163838.GB14449@elte.hu>
Date:	Wed, 8 Apr 2009 18:38:38 +0200
From:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To:	Paul Mundt <lethal@...ux-sh.org>,
	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, niv@...ibm.com, dvhltc@...ibm.com,
	dhowells@...hat.com, kernel@...tstofly.org, matthew@....cx,
	Matt Mackall <mpm@...enic.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] v3 RCU: the bloatwatch edition


* Paul Mundt <lethal@...ux-sh.org> wrote:

> On Fri, Apr 03, 2009 at 12:36:05AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > * Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> > > This patch is a version of RCU designed for (!SMP && EMBEDDED) 
> > > provided as a proof of concept of a small-footprint RCU 
> > > implementation. In particular, the implementation of 
> > > synchronize_rcu() is extremely lightweight and high performance.  
> > > It passes rcutorture testing in each of the four relevant 
> > > configurations (combinations of NO_HZ and PREEMPT) on x86.  This 
> > > saves about 900 bytes compared to Classic RCU, and a couple 
> > > kilobytes compared to Hierarchical RCU:
> > 
> > Andrew, what do you think?
> > 
> > A worry is yet another RCU variant - we already have 3.
> > 
> > A trick we could use would be to put it into Documentation/rcu/, 
> > linked in via some clever Makefile magic and only usable if a 
> > ultra-embedded developer does a build with something like 
> > CONFIG_RCU_TINY=y. That way there's no real maintenance and testing 
> > overhead.
> > 
> > It _does_ have documentation value beyond the ~900 bytes: it's the 
> > simplest and smallest possible still-working UP RCU implementation 
> > so it would be easy to teach RCU concepts via that, gradually.
> 
> A similar argument could have been used for tiny-shmem when it was 
> first integrated. As this is hiding behind CONFIG_EMBEDDED, most 
> users are not going to run in to it, so the confusion of 1 more 
> RCU variant is not likely to be a problem for those that aren't 
> actively seeking it out.
> 
> So, personally I think it is a good idea, and I have no 
> reservations about default enabling it for a number of more 
> constrained SH platforms.

but at least tiny-shmem is now nicely hidden in mm/shmem.c, in an 
unintrusive !CONFIG_SHMEM branch. There's no CONFIG_TINY_SHMEM 
option anymore - it's all done in the !CONFIG_SHMEM case.

Is tiny-RCU in the same category?

	Ingo
--
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/