linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/6] buffer: cleanup free_more

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]

Date:   Wed, 20 Sep 2017 09:18:47 -0600
From:   Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>
To:     Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-mm@...ck.org, hannes@...xchg.org, clm@...com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/6] buffer: cleanup free_more_memory() flusher wakeup

On 09/20/2017 08:17 AM, Jan Kara wrote:
> On Tue 19-09-17 13:53:02, Jens Axboe wrote:
>> This whole function is... interesting. Change the wakeup call
>> to the flusher threads to pass in nr_pages == 0, instead of
>> some random number of pages. This matches more closely what
>> similar cases do for memory shortage/reclaim.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>
> 
> Ok, probably makes sense. You can add:
> 
> Reviewed-by: Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
> 
> BTW, after this nobody seems to use the number of pages for
> wakeup_flusher_threads() so can you just delete the argument for the
> function? After all system-wide wakeup is useful only for system wide
> sync(2) or memory reclaim so number of pages isn't very useful...

Great observation! That's true, and if we kill that, it enables
further cleanups down the line for patch 5 and 6. I have
incorporated that.

-- 
Jens Axboe