linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] bcache: Fix a shrinker 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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Wed, 4 Sep 2013 16:45:04 -0700
From:	Kent Overstreet <kmo@...erainc.com>
To:	kernel neophyte <neophyte.hacker001@...il.com>
Cc:	"linux-bcache@...r.kernel.org" <linux-bcache@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Stefan Priebe <s.priebe@...fihost.ag>,
	Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] bcache: Fix a shrinker deadlock

On Wed, Sep 04, 2013 at 04:35:50PM -0700, kernel neophyte wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 30, 2013 at 2:15 PM, Kent Overstreet <kmo@...erainc.com> wrote:
> > GFP_NOIO means we could be getting called recursively - mca_alloc() ->
> > mca_data_alloc() - definitely can't use mutex_lock(bucket_lock) then.
> > Whoops.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Kent Overstreet <kmo@...erainc.com>
> 
> Awesome! I tested the fix... no crashes/deadlock.
> But I see lower benchmark numbers for random write.. is this expected
> for this change ?

No... how much lower?
--
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/