linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/2] Per-task wait_queue

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, 10 Jun 2014 17:50:37 +0200
From:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:	Rasmus Villemoes <linux@...musvillemoes.dk>
Cc:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
	Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
	David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
	"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
	Davidlohr Bueso <davidlohr@...com>,
	Michal Simek <michal.simek@...inx.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] Per-task wait_queue_t

On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 02:29:17PM +0200, Rasmus Villemoes wrote:
> This is an attempt to reduce the stack footprint of various functions
> (those using any of the wait_event_* macros), by removing the need to
> allocate a wait_queue_t on the stack and instead use a single instance
> embedded in task_struct. I'm not really sure where the best place to
> put it is; I just placed it next to other list bookkeeping fields.
> 
> For now, there is a little unconditional debugging. This could later
> be removed or maybe be made dependent on some CONFIG_* variable. The
> idea of using ->flags is taken from Pavel [1] (I originally stored
> (void*)1 into ->private).
> 
> Compiles, but not actually tested.
> 

Doesn't look too bad, would be good to be tested and have some numbers
on the amount of stack saved etc..

Content of type "application/pgp-signature" skipped