linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 1/4] lib/dlock-list: Distributed and lock-protected lists

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <5792856D.7070508@hpe.com>
Date:	Fri, 22 Jul 2016 16:43:25 -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: [PATCH v3 1/4] lib/dlock-list: Distributed and lock-protected
 lists

On 07/19/2016 02:42 PM, Waiman Long wrote:
> On 07/18/2016 07:38 PM, Tejun Heo wrote:
>
>
>>> +/*
>>> + * include/linux/dlock-list.h
>>> + *
>>> + * A distributed (per-cpu) set of lists each of which is protected 
>>> by its
>>> + * own spinlock, but acts like a single consolidated list to the 
>>> callers.
>>> + *
>>> + * The dlock_list_head_percpu structure contains the spinlock, the 
>>> other
>>> + * dlock_list_node structures only contains a pointer to the 
>>> spinlock in
>>> + * dlock_list_head_percpu.
>>> + */
>> The more I think about it, the more bothered I'm about the dlock_list
>> name.  For the most part, this isn't different from other percpu data
>> structures in the kernel.  Sure, it might benefit from doing Nth cpu,
>> but so are other percpu data structures and it's not just "distributed
>> lock" list either.  The list itself is percpu, not just locking.  Can
>> we please go back to percpu_list?  Christoph, what do you think?
>>
>
> As I said before, I don't mind reverting the name back to percpu_list. 
> I am just waiting for a final agreement.
>

I have just sent out an update dlock-list patch that incorporates all 
the feedbacks that I got so far except the name change. I will be on 
vacation next week. After I come back, we can continue our discussion if 
the name should be reverted back to percpu_list or not.

Cheers,
Longman