linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH/RFC] z3fold: use per-page read/write lock

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: <87lgwxo5u9.fsf@tassilo.jf.intel.com>
Date:   Sat, 05 Nov 2016 16:38:22 -0700
From:   Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
To:     Vitaly Wool <vitalywool@...il.com>
Cc:     Linux-MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Dan Streetman <ddstreet@...e.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH/RFC] z3fold: use per-page read/write lock

Vitaly Wool <vitalywool@...il.com> writes:

> Most of z3fold operations are in-page, such as modifying z3fold
> page header or moving z3fold objects within a page. Taking
> per-pool spinlock to protect per-page objects is therefore
> suboptimal, and the idea of having a per-page spinlock (or rwlock)
> has been around for some time. However, adding one directly to the
> z3fold header makes the latter quite big on some systems so that
> it won't fit in a signle chunk.

> +	atomic_t page_lock;

This doesnt make much sense. A standard spinlock is not bigger
than 4 bytes either. Also reinventing locks is usually a bad
idea: they are tricky to get right, you have no debugging support,
hard to analyze, etc.

-Andi