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: Sat, 14 Jan 2017 16:19:39 +0300 From: Vladimir Davydov <vdavydov@...antool.org> To: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org> Cc: cl@...ux.com, penberg@...nel.org, rientjes@...gle.com, iamjoonsoo.kim@....com, akpm@...ux-foundation.org, jsvana@...com, hannes@...xchg.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org, cgroups@...r.kernel.org, kernel-team@...com Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/9] slab: remove synchronous rcu_barrier() call in memcg cache release path Hello Tejun, Thanks a lot for looking into this issue as it seems to affect a lot of users! On Sat, Jan 14, 2017 at 12:54:42AM -0500, Tejun Heo wrote: > This patch updates the cache release path so that it simply uses > call_rcu() instead of the synchronous rcu_barrier() + custom batching. > This doesn't cost more while being logically simpler and way more > scalable. The point of rcu_barrier() is to wait until all rcu calls freeing slabs from the cache being destroyed are over (rcu_free_slab, kmem_rcu_free). I'm not sure if call_rcu() guarantees that for all rcu implementations too. If it did, why would we need rcu_barrier() at all?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists