linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 2/2] mm: make lru_add_drain

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, 13 Aug 2013 15:47:40 -0700
From:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
Cc:	Chris Metcalf <cmetcalf@...era.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-mm@...ck.org, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
	Cody P Schafer <cody@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 2/2] mm: make lru_add_drain_all() selective

On Tue, 13 Aug 2013 18:33:04 -0400 Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org> wrote:

> Hello, Andrew.
> 
> On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 03:18:05PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > I don't buy it.  The callback simply determines whether "we need to
> > schuedule work on this cpu".  It's utterly simple.  Nobody will have
> > trouble understanding or using such a thing.
> 
> Well, I don't buy that either.  Callback based interface has its
> issues.

No it hasn't.  It's a common and simple technique which we all understand.

>  The difference we're talking about here is pretty minute but
> then again the improvement brought on by the callback is pretty minute
> too.

It's a relatively small improvement in the lru_add_drain_all() case. 
Other callsites can gain improvements as well.

> > It removes one memory allocation and initialisation per call.  It
> > removes an entire for_each_online_cpu() loop.
> 
> But that doesn't solve the original problem at all and while it
> removes the loop, it also adds a separate function.

It results in superior runtime code.  At this and potentially other
callsites.

> > I really don't understand what's going on here.  You're advocating for
> > a weaker kernel interface and for inferior kernel runtime behaviour. 
> > Forcing callers to communicate their needs via a large,
> > dynamically-allocated temporary rather than directly.  And what do we
> > get in return for all this?  Some stuff about callbacks which frankly
> > has me scratching my head.
> 
> Well, it is a fairly heavy path and you're pushing for an optimization
> which won't make any noticeable difference at all.  And, yes, I do
> think we need to stick to simpler APIs whereever possible.  Sure the
> difference is minute here but the addition of test callback doesn't
> buy us anything either, so what's the point?

It does buy us things, as I've repeatedly described.  You keep on
saying things which demonstrably aren't so.  I think I'll give up now.


--
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/