linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] vmscan: don't subtraction of unsined

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: <alpine.DEB.2.00.1007132047001.14067@router.home>
Date:	Tue, 13 Jul 2010 20:50:14 -0500 (CDT)
From:	Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>
cc:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	linux-mm <linux-mm@...ck.org>, Mel Gorman <mel@....ul.ie>,
	Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
	Minchan Kim <minchan.kim@...il.com>,
	Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] vmscan: don't subtraction of unsined

On Tue, 13 Jul 2010, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote:

> Christoph, Can we hear your opinion about to add new branch in slab-free path?
> I think this is ok, because reclaim makes a lot of cache miss then branch
> mistaken is relatively minor penalty. thought?

Its on the slow path so I would think that should be okay. But is this
really necessary? Working with the per zone slab reclaim counters is not
enough? We are adding counter after counter that have similar purposes and
the handling gets more complex.

Maybe we can get rid of the code in the slabs instead by just relying on
the difference of the zone counters?

--
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/