linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH v2 6/7] lib/persubnode: Introducing a simple per-subnode APIs

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: <57854829.3030505@hpe.com>
Date:	Tue, 12 Jul 2016 15:42:33 -0400
From:	Waiman Long <waiman.long@....com>
To:	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
CC:	Alexander Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>, Jan Kara <jack@...e.com>,
	Jeff Layton <jlayton@...chiereds.net>,
	"J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@...ldses.org>,
	Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux-foundation.org>,
	<linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
	Dave Chinner <dchinner@...hat.com>,
	Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>,
	Scott J Norton <scott.norton@....com>,
	Douglas Hatch <doug.hatch@....com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2 6/7] lib/persubnode: Introducing a simple per-subnode
 APIs

On 07/12/2016 02:57 PM, Tejun Heo wrote:
> Hello,
>
> On Tue, Jul 12, 2016 at 02:51:31PM -0400, Waiman Long wrote:
>> The last 2 RFC patches were created in response to Andi's comment to have
>> coarser granularity than per-cpu. In this particular use case, I don't think
>> global list traversals are frequent enough to really have any noticeable
>> performance impact. So I don't have any benchmark number to support this
>> change. However, it may not be true for other future use cases.
>>
>> These 2 patches were created to gauge if using a per-subnode API for this
>> use case is a good idea or not. I am perfectly happy to keep it as per-cpu
>> and scrap the last 2 RFC patches. My main goal is to make this patchset more
>> acceptable to be moved forward instead of staying in limbo.
> I see.  I don't think it makes sense to add a whole new API for a use
> case which doesn't really need it without any backing data.  It
> probably would be best to revisit this when we're dealing with an
> actually problematic case.
>
> Thanks.
>

I am fine with that. BTW, do you think patches 1-5 are good enough to be 
merged in a future release or is there further improvement that needs to 
be made?

Thanks,
Longman