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
| ||
|
Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2017 06:46:19 +0900 From: Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.SAKURA.ne.jp> To: shakeelb@...gle.com Cc: minchan@...nel.org, ying.huang@...el.com, mgorman@...hsingularity.net, vdavydov.dev@...il.com, mhocko@...nel.org, gthelen@...gle.com, hannes@...xchg.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org, linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] mm, shrinker: make shrinker_list lockless Shakeel Butt wrote: > > If you can accept serialized register_shrinker()/unregister_shrinker(), > > I think that something like shown below can do it. > > If we assume that we will never do register_shrinker and > unregister_shrinker on the same object in parallel then do we still > need to do msleep & synchronize_rcu() within mutex? Doing register_shrinker() and unregister_shrinker() on the same object in parallel is wrong. This mutex is to ensure that we do not need to worry about ->list.next field. synchronize_rcu() should not be slow. If you want to avoid msleep() with mutex held, you can also apply > > If you want parallel register_shrinker()/unregister_shrinker(), something like > > shown below on top of shown above will do it. change.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists