linux-kernel - Re: [PATCHSET] block, mempool, percpu: implement percpu mempool and fix blkcg percpu alloc deadlock

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]

Date:	Thu, 22 Dec 2011 14:09:11 -0800
From:	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:	avi@...hat.com, nate@...nel.net, cl@...ux-foundation.org,
	oleg@...hat.com, axboe@...nel.dk, vgoyal@...hat.com,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCHSET] block, mempool, percpu: implement percpu mempool
 and fix blkcg percpu alloc deadlock

Hello,

On Thu, Dec 22, 2011 at 01:59:25PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> How about we just delete those statistics and then this patchset?
> 
> Or how about we change those statistics to not do percpu allocations,
> then delete this patchset?

I'm not against above both but apparently those percpu stats reduced
CPU overhead significantly.

> Or how about we fix the percpu memory allocation code so that it
> propagates the gfp flags, then delete this patchset?

Oh, no, this is gonna make things *way* more complex.  I tried.  If
we're gonna have many more NOIO percpu users, which I don't think we
would or should, that might make sense but, for fringe cases,
extending mempool to cover percpu is a much better sized solution.

Thanks.

-- 
tejun
--
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/