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
| ||
|
Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2014 17:51:01 +0200 From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> To: Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com> Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>, Paul McKenney <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>, Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Minchan Kim <minchan@...nel.org>, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>, Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>, Lai Jiangshan <laijs@...fujitsu.com>, Davidlohr Bueso <dave@...olabs.net>, Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, linux-mm <linux-mm@...ck.org> Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 4/6] SRCU free VMAs On Fri, Oct 24, 2014 at 10:16:24AM -0500, Christoph Lameter wrote: > Hmmm... One optimization to do before we get into these changes is to work > on allowing the dropping of mmap_sem before we get to sleeping and I/O and > then reevaluate when I/O etc is complete? This is probably the longest > hold on mmap_sem that is also frequent. Then it may be easier to use > standard RCU later. The hold time isn't relevant, in fact breaking up the mmap_sem such that we require multiple acquisitions will just increase the cacheline bouncing. Also I think it makes more sense to continue an entire fault operation, including blocking, if at all possible. Every retry will just waste more time. Also, there is a lot of possible blocking, there's lock_page, page_mkwrite() -- which ends up calling into the dirty throttle etc. We could not possibly retry on all that, the error paths involved would be horrible for one. That said, there's a fair bit of code that does allow the retry, and I think most fault paths actually do the retry on IO. -- 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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists