linux-kernel - RE: [PATCH 4/8] scsi: ufshpb: Make eviction depends on region's reads

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: <DM6PR04MB6575D4DFF9B319F0A55B2F7FFCB69@DM6PR04MB6575.namprd04.prod.outlook.com>
Date:   Mon, 1 Feb 2021 07:14:02 +0000
From:   Avri Altman <Avri.Altman@....com>
To:     "daejun7.park@...sung.com" <daejun7.park@...sung.com>,
        "James E . J . Bottomley" <jejb@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        "Martin K . Petersen" <martin.petersen@...cle.com>,
        "linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org" <linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
CC:     "gregkh@...uxfoundation.org" <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@....org>,
        yongmyung lee <ymhungry.lee@...sung.com>,
        ALIM AKHTAR <alim.akhtar@...sung.com>,
        "asutoshd@...eaurora.org" <asutoshd@...eaurora.org>,
        Zang Leigang <zangleigang@...ilicon.com>,
        Avi Shchislowski <Avi.Shchislowski@....com>,
        Bean Huo <beanhuo@...ron.com>,
        "cang@...eaurora.org" <cang@...eaurora.org>,
        "stanley.chu@...iatek.com" <stanley.chu@...iatek.com>
Subject: RE: [PATCH 4/8] scsi: ufshpb: Make eviction depends on region's reads

> 
> 
> Hi Avri,
> 
> > +             /*
> > +              * in host control mode, verify that the exiting region
> > +              * has less reads
> > +              */
> > +             if (ufshpb_mode == HPB_HOST_CONTROL &&
> > +                 atomic64_read(&rgn->reads) > (EVICTION_THRSHLD >> 1))
> Why we use shifted value to verify less read? I think we should use another
> value to verify.
Yes.
Will make every logic parameters configurable.