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: Mon, 31 Aug 2015 14:51:39 +0200 From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com> To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org> Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>, Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>, Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>, "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, Maciej Żenczykowski <maze@...gle.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH] task_work: remove fifo ordering guarantee On 08/31, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > * Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com> wrote: > > > On 08/29, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > > > > > So I'm wondering, is there any strong reason why we couldn't use a double linked > > > list and still do FIFO and remove that silly linear list walking hack? > > > > This will obviously enlarge callback_head, and it is often embedded. > > But this is minor. > > > > If we use a double linked list we can't do task_work_add() lockless. > > So we will need another spinlock_t in task_struct. We can't use pi_lock. > > The fact that the O(N) overhead was measured in real apps to be in the > milliseconds IMHO weakens cycle-level concerns about also having a spinlock next > to the list head. (There's no additional cacheline bouncing concerns with the > spinlock: the head of a LIFO list is essentially a bouncing cacheline.) I agree. I just tried to explain that we need a bit more changes than just s/callback_head/list_head/ in task_struct. And. The fact that this O(N) overhead was measured means that we have more overhead with offload-fput-to-exit_task_work which would be nice to remove as well. Oleg. -- 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