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  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]
Date:   Sun, 29 Jan 2017 19:04:17 +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 10/10] slab: use memcg_kmem_cache_wq for slab destruction
 operations

On Tue, Jan 17, 2017 at 03:54:11PM -0800, Tejun Heo wrote:
> If there's contention on slab_mutex, queueing the per-cache
> destruction work item on the system_wq can unnecessarily create and
> tie up a lot of kworkers.
> 
> Rename memcg_kmem_cache_create_wq to memcg_kmem_cache_wq and make it
> global and use that workqueue for the destruction work items too.
> While at it, convert the workqueue from an unbound workqueue to a
> per-cpu one with concurrency limited to 1.  It's generally preferable
> to use per-cpu workqueues and concurrency limit of 1 is safe enough.
> 
> This is suggested by Joonsoo Kim.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
> Reported-by: Jay Vana <jsvana@...com>
> Cc: Vladimir Davydov <vdavydov.dev@...il.com>
> Cc: Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>
> Cc: Pekka Enberg <penberg@...nel.org>
> Cc: David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>
> Cc: Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@....com>
> Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>

Acked-by: Vladimir Davydov <vdavydov.dev@...il.com>

Powered by blists - more mailing lists