linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH -v10 0/4] Lock-less 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: <AANLkTimR6xd1PxCP6jmuNwFkANrGPdTf2wpiGsBXGpKx@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Thu, 20 Jan 2011 19:18:12 +0800
From:	huang ying <huang.ying.caritas@...il.com>
To:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Huang Ying <ying.huang@...el.com>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Chris Mason <chris.mason@...cle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH -v10 0/4] Lock-less list

On Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 6:44 PM, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
> On Wed, 2011-01-19 at 16:52 -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
>> On Thu, 20 Jan 2011 08:45:58 +0800
>> Huang Ying <ying.huang@...el.com> wrote:
>>
>> > On Thu, 2011-01-20 at 05:55 +0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
>> > > I'm trying to remember why we're talking about this.
>> > >
>> > > You had an ACPI-based "hardware error reporting" thing.  And that
>> > > required an nmi-context memory allocator.  And that required a
>> > > "lockless" list implementation.
>> > >
>> > > Yes?
>> >
>> > Yes.  But the "lockless" list implementation is general, it can be used
>> > by other part of kernel too,  such as irq_work and xlist in
>> > net/rds/xlist.h in the patchset.
>>
>> Well.  Lots of things are general but that doesn't mean we toss them
>> into the kernel when we already have plenty of infrastructure to handle
>> that sort of thing.
>>
>> otoh, hoisting xlist.h out of net/rds and making it generally available
>> is a good thing.
>>
>> otooh, net/rds/ probably didn't need xlist at all and could have used
>> existing general code.
>>
>> So...  I'd say that unless and until the NMI-context allocator is
>> merged, the case for merging the lockless list code is a bit marginal?
>> Or have you identified other code sites which could use llist and which
>> would gain some benefit from migrating?
>
> In fact, I have a patch ready and waiting to revert the whole irq_work
> stuff, that too seems to be a superfluous generalization.

What do you plan to replace irq_work?  I plan to use it in APEI NMI
handler and MCE handler.

Best Regards,
Huang Ying
--
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/