linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v18 15/32] mm/lru: move lock into lru_note

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: <323ae796-a547-3ac3-b4fd-68a4ac180690@linux.alibaba.com>
Date:   Tue, 22 Sep 2020 11:39:05 +0800
From:   Alex Shi <alex.shi@...ux.alibaba.com>
To:     Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>
Cc:     akpm@...ux-foundation.org, mgorman@...hsingularity.net,
        tj@...nel.org, khlebnikov@...dex-team.ru,
        daniel.m.jordan@...cle.com, willy@...radead.org,
        hannes@...xchg.org, lkp@...el.com, linux-mm@...ck.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, cgroups@...r.kernel.org,
        shakeelb@...gle.com, iamjoonsoo.kim@....com,
        richard.weiyang@...il.com, kirill@...temov.name,
        alexander.duyck@...il.com, rong.a.chen@...el.com, mhocko@...e.com,
        vdavydov.dev@...il.com, shy828301@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v18 15/32] mm/lru: move lock into lru_note_cost



在 2020/9/22 上午6:03, Hugh Dickins 写道:
>> Acked-by: Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>
>>
>> In your lruv19 github tree, you have merged 14/32 into this one: thanks.
> Grr, I've only just started, and already missed some of my notes.
> 
> I wanted to point out that this patch does introduce an extra unlock+lock
> in shrink_inactive_list(), even in a !CONFIG_MEMCG build.  I think you've
> done the right thing for now, keeping it simple, and maybe nobody will
> notice the extra overhead; but I expect us to replace lru_note_cost()
> by lru_note_cost_unlock_irq() later on, expecting the caller to do the
> initial lock_irq().
> 
> lru_note_cost_page() looks redundant to me, but you're right not to
> delete it here, unless Johannes asks you to add that in: that's his
> business, and it may be dependent on the XXX at its callsite.
> 

Thanks for comments! And got your point. so I will leave this patch alone.

Thanks!