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]

Date:	Tue, 7 Feb 2012 08:33:15 -0800
From:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>
Cc:	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.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()

On Tue, Feb 7, 2012 at 8:28 AM, Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk> wrote:
>
> That was already merged in my tree. I don't see how it makes much
> difference in tracking the regression. You said that removing it made no
> difference for the find test case, so I'd be more comfortable getting
> rid of the nasty optimization.

Yeah, please just get rid of the crazy code. Maybe *that* fixes the
regression too, who knows?

For all we know, the "fast case" is what causes extra locking only to
then fail and not even be a fast-path.

I think our default action should always be to simplify and clean up
code, unless you have seriously hard numbers to show that the code
complexity is worth it.

                      Linus
--
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/