linux-kernel - Re: Raw spinlocks and memory allocation

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: <20200731142919.36c4c741189426db0f8b8514@linux-foundation.org>
Date:   Fri, 31 Jul 2020 14:29:19 -0700
From:   Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To:     paulmck@...nel.org
Cc:     Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>, cl@...ux.com,
        penberg@...nel.org, rientjes@...gle.com, iamjoonsoo.kim@....com,
        hannes@...xchg.org, urezki@...il.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-mm@...ck.org
Subject: Re: Raw spinlocks and memory allocation

On Fri, 31 Jul 2020 14:24:57 -0700 "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org> wrote:

> The reason for this restriction is that in -rt, the spin_lock(&zone->lock)
> in rmqueue_bulk() can sleep.

So if there is runtime overhead, this overhead could be restricted to
-rt kernels with suitable ifdefs?