linux-kernel - Re: dm bufio: Reduce dm_bufio

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]

Message-ID: <alpine.LRH.2.02.1806221445310.2717@file01.intranet.prod.int.rdu2.redhat.com>
Date:   Fri, 22 Jun 2018 14:46:58 -0400 (EDT)
From:   Mikulas Patocka <mpatocka@...hat.com>
To:     Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>
cc:     jing xia <jing.xia.mail@...il.com>,
        Mike Snitzer <snitzer@...hat.com>, agk@...hat.com,
        dm-devel@...hat.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-mm@...ck.org
Subject: Re: dm bufio: Reduce dm_bufio_lock contention



On Fri, 22 Jun 2018, Michal Hocko wrote:

> On Fri 22-06-18 08:44:52, Mikulas Patocka wrote:
> > On Fri, 22 Jun 2018, Michal Hocko wrote:
> [...]
> > > Why? How are you going to audit all the callers that the behavior makes
> > > sense and moreover how are you going to ensure that future usage will
> > > still make sense. The more subtle side effects gfp flags have the harder
> > > they are to maintain.
> > 
> > I did audit them - see the previous email in this thread: 
> > https://www.redhat.com/archives/dm-devel/2018-June/thread.html
> 
> I do not see any mention about throttling expectations for those users.
> You have focused only on the allocation failure fallback AFAIR

How should the callers be analyzed with respect to throttling?

Mikulas