linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] block: strip out locking optimization in put_io

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: <20120207162253.GG21292@google.com>
Date:	Tue, 7 Feb 2012 08:22:53 -0800
From:	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To:	Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>
Cc:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@...hat.com>,
	Shaohua Li <vivek.goyal2008@...il.com>,
	lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Knut Petersen <Knut_Petersen@...nline.de>, mroos@...ux.ee
Subject: Re: [PATCH] block: strip out locking optimization in
 put_io_context()

Hello, Jens.

On Tue, Feb 07, 2012 at 07:49:19AM +0100, Jens Axboe wrote:
> > I couldn't find any statiscally meaningful advantage of the
> > optimization with tight fork/exit tests w/ forced ioc creation on
> > fork, which gotta be the most pathological test case for the code
> > path.  So, let's remove the ugly optimization.  If I missed sth, we
> > can resurrect the simpler optimization later.  Jens, this is on top of
> > linus#master without Shaohua's patch.
> 
> OK, then I'm fine with cleaning it up. Applied, thanks Tejun.

Hmmm... how about merging Shaohua's smaller fix first until we figure
out what's going on with the performance regression he's seeing?

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/