linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] zsmalloc: do not use bit_spin

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]

Date:   Thu, 14 Jan 2021 17:56:45 +0100
From:   Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>
To:     Vitaly Wool <vitaly.wool@...sulko.com>
Cc:     "tiantao (H)" <tiantao6@...wei.com>,
        "Song Bao Hua (Barry Song)" <song.bao.hua@...ilicon.com>,
        Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@...gle.com>,
        Minchan Kim <minchan@...nel.org>,
        Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-mm <linux-mm@...ck.org>, NitinGupta <ngupta@...are.org>,
        Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky.work@...il.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        "tiantao (H)" <tiantao6@...ilicon.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] zsmalloc: do not use bit_spin_lock

On 2021-01-14 17:29:37 [+0100], Vitaly Wool wrote:
> On Thu, 14 Jan 2021, 17:18 Sebastian Andrzej Siewior,
> <bigeasy@...utronix.de> wrote:
> >
> > On 2020-12-23 19:25:02 [+0100], Vitaly Wool wrote:
> > > > write the following patch according to your idea, what do you think ?
> > >
> > > Yep, that is basically what I was thinking of. Some nitpicks below:
> >
> > Did this go somewhere? The thread just ends here on my end.
> > Mike, is this patch fixing / helping your case in anyway?
> 
> Please see
> * https://marc.info/?l=linux-mm&m=160889419514019&w=2
> * https://marc.info/?l=linux-mm&m=160889418114011&w=2
> * https://marc.info/?l=linux-mm&m=160889448814057&w=2

Thank you, that would be
   1608894171-54174-1-git-send-email-tiantao6@...ilicon.com

for b4 compatibility :)

> Haven't had time to test these yet but seem to be alright.

So zs_map_object() still disables preemption but the mutex part is
avoided by the patch?

> Best regards,
>    Vitaly

Sebastian