linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/2] lib: more scalable list

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: <20100125034151.GL25842@discord.disaster>
Date:	Mon, 25 Jan 2010 14:41:51 +1100
From:	Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>
To:	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
Cc:	Don Mullis <don.mullis@...il.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	airlied@...hat.com, dedekind@...radead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] lib: more scalable list_sort()

On Sun, Jan 24, 2010 at 09:59:06PM +0100, Andi Kleen wrote:
> > Similarly, adding cond_resched() to list_sort means you can stop
> > worrying about the scheduling latency impact of sorting long lists.
> > I fail to see why you're making such a big deal out of this.....
> 
> It's not easy to add it to a low level library function like list_sort()
> because you would need to ensure that all callers are allowed to sleep.

might_sleep() annotations are typically used in this case....

> Or even if all callers currently allow it future ones might not.

You're trying to make this way more complex than the current
requirements need it to be.  Just declaring a simple rule -
"list_sort() can sleep" - and all these problems go away until
someone really needs list sorting in atomic context.

Cheers,

Dave.
-- 
Dave Chinner
david@...morbit.com
--
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/