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.2.02.1809041328320.8875@file01.intranet.prod.int.rdu2.redhat.com>
Date:   Tue, 4 Sep 2018 13:30:44 -0400 (EDT)
From:   Mikulas Patocka <mpatocka@...hat.com>
To:     Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>
cc:     Mike Snitzer <snitzer@...hat.com>,
        jing xia <jing.xia.mail@...il.com>, agk@...hat.com,
        dm-devel@...hat.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: dm bufio: Reduce dm_bufio_lock contention



On Tue, 4 Sep 2018, Michal Hocko wrote:

> Regarding other other workloads. AFAIR the problem was due to the
> wait_iff_congested in the direct reclaim. And I've been arguing that
> special casing __GFP_NORETRY is not a propoer way to handle that case.
> We have PF_LESS_THROTTLE to handle cases where the caller cannot be
> really throttled because it is a part of the congestion control. I dunno
> what happened in that regards since then though.
> -- 
> Michal Hocko
> SUSE Labs

So, could you take this patch https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/10505523/ 
and commit it to the kernel?

You agreed with that patch, but you didn't commit it.

Mikulas