linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH 1/1 v2] vmscan: Support multiple kswapd threads per node

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <9FBD9A5F-8381-4810-A480-806632EBBDFC@oracle.com>
Date:   Tue, 10 Apr 2018 14:37:27 -0700
From:   Buddy Lumpkin <buddy.lumpkin@...cle.com>
To:     Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>
Cc:     linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        hannes@...xchg.org, riel@...riel.com, mgorman@...e.de,
        willy@...radead.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 1/1 v2] vmscan: Support multiple kswapd threads per
 node


> On Apr 6, 2018, at 12:38 AM, Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org> wrote:
> 
> On Thu 05-04-18 23:25:14, Buddy Lumpkin wrote:
>> 
>>> On Apr 4, 2018, at 11:10 PM, Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org> wrote:
>>> 
>>> On Wed 04-04-18 21:49:54, Buddy Lumpkin wrote:
>>>> v2:
>>>> - Make update_kswapd_threads_node less racy
>>>> - Handle locking for case where CONFIG_MEMORY_HOTPLUG=n
>>> 
>>> Please do not repost with such a small changes. It is much more
>>> important to sort out the big picture first and only then deal with
>>> minor implementation details. The more versions you post the more
>>> fragmented and messy the discussion will become.
>>> 
>>> You will have to be patient because this is a rather big change and it
>>> will take _quite_ some time to get sorted.
>>> 
>>> Thanks!
>>> -- 
>>> Michal Hocko
>>> SUSE Labs
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Sorry about that, I actually had three people review my code internally,
>> then I managed to send out an old version. 100% guilty of submitting
>> code when I needed sleep. As for the change, that was in response
>> to a request from Andrew to make the update function less racy.
>> 
>> Should I resend a correct v2 now that the thread exists?
> 
> Let's just discuss open questions for now. Specifics of the code are the
> least interesting at this stage.
> 
> If you want some help with the code review, you can put it somewhere in
> the git tree and send a reference for those who are interested.
> -- 
> Michal Hocko
> SUSE Labs

Ok, I will go back through the thread and make sure all questions and
concerns have been addressed.