linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v5 04/18] slab: don't preemptively remove element from list in cache destroy

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: <CAOJsxLFxQuC9mRb=ZMoqdxS6fyLHCg1LxyfF9wAR1hiOL5i93g@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Wed, 24 Oct 2012 09:54:05 +0300
From:	Pekka Enberg <penberg@...nel.org>
To:	Glauber Costa <glommer@...allels.com>
Cc:	Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, cgroups@...r.kernel.org,
	Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.cz>,
	Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
	kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com,
	David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>, devel@...nvz.org,
	Suleiman Souhlal <suleiman@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 04/18] slab: don't preemptively remove element from
 list in cache destroy

On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 11:40 AM, Glauber Costa <glommer@...allels.com> wrote:
> On 10/19/2012 11:34 PM, Christoph Lameter wrote:
>> On Fri, 19 Oct 2012, Glauber Costa wrote:
>>
>>> I, however, see no reason why we need to do so, since we are now locked
>>> during the whole deletion (which wasn't necessarily true before).  I
>>> propose a simplification in which we delete it only when there is no
>>> more going back, so we don't need to add it again.
>>
>> Ok lets hope that holding the lock does not cause issues.
>>
>> Acked-by: Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>
>>
> BTW: One of the good things about this set, is that we are naturally
> exercising cache destruction a lot more than we did before. So if there
> is any problem, either with this or anything related to cache
> destruction, it should at least show up a lot more frequently. So far,
> this does not seem to cause any problems.

We no longer hold the mutex the whole time after. See commit 210ed9d
("mm, slab: release slab_mutex earlier in kmem_cache_destroy()") for
details.
--
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/