linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH -next 0/5] rbtree: optimize frequent tree walks

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: <20200210155611.lfrddnolsyzktqne@linux-p48b>
Date:   Mon, 10 Feb 2020 07:56:11 -0800
From:   Davidlohr Bueso <dave@...olabs.net>
To:     Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, mcgrof@...nel.org,
        broonie@...nel.org, alex.williamson@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH -next 0/5] rbtree: optimize frequent tree walks

On Sun, 09 Feb 2020, Andrew Morton wrote:
>Seems that all the caller sites you've converted use a fairly small
>number of rbnodes, so the additional storage shouldn't be a big
>problem.  Are there any other sites you're eyeing?  If so, do you expect
>any of those will use a significant amount of memory for the nodes?

I also thought about converting the deadline scheduler to use these,
mainly benefiting pull_dl_task() but didn't get to it and I don't expect
the extra footprint to be prohibitive.

>
>And...  are these patches really worth merging?  Complexity is added,
>but what end-user benefit can we expect?

Yes they are worth merging, imo (which of course is biased :)

I don't think there is too much added complexity overall, particularly
considering that the user conversions are rather trivial. And even for
small trees (ie 100 nodes) we still benefit in a measurable way from
these optimizations.

Thanks,
Davidlohr