linux-kernel - Re: [patch 1/2]percpu

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: <20140210161619.GB8570@infradead.org>
Date:	Mon, 10 Feb 2014 08:16:19 -0800
From:	Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
To:	Alexander Gordeev <agordeev@...hat.com>
Cc:	Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
	Kent Overstreet <kmo@...erainc.com>,
	Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>, Shaohua Li <shli@...nel.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [patch 1/2]percpu_ida: fix a live lock

On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 04:49:17PM +0100, Alexander Gordeev wrote:
> > Do we really always need the pool for these classes of devices?
> > 
> > Pulling tags from local caches to the pool just to (near to) dry it at
> > the very next iteration does not seem beneficial. Not to mention caches
> > vs pool locking complexities.
> 
> And I meant here we do not scrap per cpu allocations.

I'm still a bit confused at what you're proposing.  Part of the problem
might be that I'm not exactly familar with the allocator and am just
looking it from a consumer perspective.

--
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/