linux-kernel - Re: [GIT PULL] ring-buffer: Allow for rescheduling when removing pages

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: <20180919093923.0422eced@gandalf.local.home>
Date:   Wed, 19 Sep 2018 09:39:23 -0400
From:   Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To:     Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Cc:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Vaibhav Nagarnaik <vnagarnaik@...gle.com>,
        Jason Behmer <jbehmer@...gle.com>, stable@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] ring-buffer: Allow for rescheduling when removing
 pages

On Wed, 19 Sep 2018 08:07:06 +0200
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org> wrote:

> On Tue, Sep 18, 2018 at 07:14:13PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > 
> > Linus (aka Greg),
> > 
> > Vaibhav Nagarnaik found that modifying the ring buffer size could cause
> > a huge latency in the system because it does a while loop to free pages
> > without releasing the CPU (on non preempt kernels). In a case where there
> > are hundreds of thousands of pages to free it could actually cause a system
> > stall. A properly place cond_resched() solves this issue.
> > 
> > 
> > Please pull the latest trace-v4.19-rc4 tree, which can be found at:
> > 
> > 
> >   git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/rostedt/linux-trace.git
> > trace-v4.19-rc4  
> 
> Ick, line wrapping makes it hard to cut/paste :(

??

That's the way I have always posted pull requests. I place the branch
on the second line. It's not line wrapped, it's a hard coded new line.
Long ago I was told to do it that way.

Should that be changed? It would be trivial to update my scripts.

> 
> Anyway, now pulled and pushed out.

Thanks,

-- Steve