linux-kernel - Re: linux-next: build failure after merge of the akpm-current tree

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:	Tue, 28 Jul 2015 11:32:07 -0700
From:	josh@...htriplett.org
To:	Davidlohr Bueso <dave@...olabs.net>
Cc:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
	linux-next@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: linux-next: build failure after merge of the akpm-current tree

On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at 11:14:40AM -0700, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
> On Mon, 2015-07-27 at 13:31 -0700, josh@...htriplett.org wrote:
> > That sounds interesting!  mmap_sem is definitely a performance
> > bottleneck.  How do you handle writes versus reads?
> 
> The idea is to make vmas srcu aware, such that their lookups in the
> vmacache are lockless and can survive the entire fault path, among
> others we have ->vm_file. We simply handle cases when the
> vma/page-tables have changed between when the lookup was done and when
> we grab the pte lock with mmap_sem. These invalidations are a pain,
> albeit non fatal in some cases.

SOunds promising.

> > > Yes, you can argue that they're not published all you want,
> > > but I'm talking beyond my specific use case. Linux VM is known to scale,
> > > why should we hide a core scalability tool from it?
> > 
> > In the case of mmap_sem, does it help at all if tiny kernels were 1)
> > non-preemptible and 2) non-SMP?  Tiny kernels don't necessarily care
> > about scaling.
> 
> Yes, I believe it would! I actually assumed tiny kernels were already
> UP. I don't think it makes much sense to have it at that level. Same
> with preemption.

OK.  So, would you consider making it possible to compile out SRCU in
that specific case, while depending on SRCU if either SMP or PREEMPT?
Because that's also the case that allows tiny RCU rather than full RCU.

- Josh Triplett
--
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/