linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH -v4 0/2] Lockless memory allocator and 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: <1289930649.2109.640.camel@laptop>
Date:	Tue, 16 Nov 2010 19:04:09 +0100
From:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:	Huang Ying <ying.huang@...el.com>, Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
	linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@...hat.com>,
	Chris Mason <chris.mason@...cle.com>,
	Jens Axboe <jaxboe@...ionio.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH -v4 0/2] Lockless memory allocator and list

On Tue, 2010-11-16 at 08:38 -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> 
> I kind of like the lock-less list implementation (it could easily be
> useful for random things, and it's very simple).

Yes, there's various implementations floating around, and we already
have one in-kernel ( net/rds/xlist.h ), mason and axboe and me have been
kicking around various patches using that thing in other circumstances
as well.

[ At some point we had perf -- what now is kernel/irq_work.c --  using
  it as well, but the new code grew too complex due to requirements
  from Huang ]

>  And I don't think the
> notion of a lockless memory allocator is wrong either, although it
> looks a lot more specialized than the list thing (the solution to
> lockless allocations is generally simply to do them ahead of time).
> 
Right, I don't generally object to lockless things, but they either need
to be 1) faster than the existing code, and/or 2) have a very convincing
use-case (other than performance) for their added complexity.

Afaict the proposed patch adds lots more LOCK'ed instructions into that
allocator path than it removes, ie its a slow down for existing users.


--
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/