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 PHC | |
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2020 13:09:57 +1100 From: Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com> To: Yang Shi <shy828301@...il.com> Cc: guro@...com, ktkhai@...tuozzo.com, shakeelb@...gle.com, hannes@...xchg.org, mhocko@...e.com, akpm@...ux-foundation.org, linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: [v2 PATCH 2/9] mm: memcontrol: use shrinker_rwsem to protect shrinker_maps allocation On Mon, Dec 14, 2020 at 02:37:15PM -0800, Yang Shi wrote: > Since memcg_shrinker_map_size just can be changd under holding shrinker_rwsem > exclusively, the read side can be protected by holding read lock, so it sounds > superfluous to have a dedicated mutex. I'm not sure this is a good idea. This couples the shrinker infrastructure to internal details of how cgroups are initialised and managed. Sure, certain operations might be done in certain shrinker lock contexts, but that doesn't mean we should share global locks across otherwise independent subsystems.... Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@...morbit.com
Powered by blists - more mailing lists