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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <871r8uoh11.fsf@yhuang6-desk2.ccr.corp.intel.com> Date: Tue, 22 Jun 2021 08:54:34 +0800 From: "Huang, Ying" <ying.huang@...el.com> To: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com> Cc: Zi Yan <ziy@...dia.com>, Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>, <linux-mm@...ck.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Yang Shi <shy828301@...il.com>, Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>, Wei Xu <weixugc@...gle.com>, David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>, Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>, David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>, osalvador <osalvador@...e.de> Subject: Re: [PATCH -V8 02/10] mm/numa: automatically generate node migration order Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com> writes: > On 6/19/21 1:18 AM, Huang, Ying wrote: >>>> int next_demotion_node(int node) >>>> { >>>> - return node_demotion[node]; >>>> + /* >>>> + * node_demotion[] is updated without excluding >>>> + * this function from running. READ_ONCE() avoids >>>> + * reading multiple, inconsistent 'node' values >>>> + * during an update. >>>> + */ >>>> + return READ_ONCE(node_demotion[node]); >>>> } >>> Is it necessary to have two separate patches to add node_demotion and >>> next_demotion_node() then modify it immediately? Maybe merge Patch 1 into 2? >>> >>> Hmm, I just checked Patch 3 and it changes node_demotion again and uses RCU. >>> I guess it might be much simpler to just introduce node_demotion with RCU >>> in this patch and Patch 3 only takes care of hotplug events. >> Hi, Dave, >> >> What do you think about this? >> > > Squashing them seems like a good idea to me. Sure. Will do that. How about move RCU from 3/10 to the squashed one? Best Regards, Huang, Ying
Powered by blists - more mailing lists