linux-kernel - Re: [GIT PULL] xfs: new code for 5.15

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: <20210903042937.GA21466@lst.de>
Date:   Fri, 3 Sep 2021 06:29:37 +0200
From:   Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
To:     Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Cc:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        "Darrick J. Wong" <djwong@...nel.org>,
        Dennis Zhou <dennis@...nel.org>, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
        linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-xfs <linux-xfs@...r.kernel.org>,
        Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Eric Sandeen <sandeen@...deen.net>,
        Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] xfs: new code for 5.15

On Thu, Sep 02, 2021 at 09:13:24PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > I'm only throwing this out as a reaction to this - I'm not sure
> > another interface would be good or worthwhile, but that "enum
> > cpuhp_state" is ugly enough that I thought I'd rope in Thomas for CPU
> > hotplug, and the percpu memory allocation people for comments.
> 
> It's not only about memory. 
> 
> > IOW, just _maybe_ we would want to have some kind of callback model
> > for "percpu_alloc()" and it being explicitly about allocations
> > becoming available or going away, rather than about CPU state.
> 
> The per cpu storage in XFS does not go away. It contains a llist head
> and the queued work items need to be moved from the dead CPU to an alive
> CPU and exposed to a work queue for processing. Similar to what we do
> with timers, hrtimers and other stuff.
> 
> If there are callbacks which are doing pretty much the same thing, then
> I'm all for a generic infrastructure for these.

In the block layer we've added a new per-cpu bio list, for which
the dead callback literally does nothing but free some memory.
For that case a simple callback would be neat, but I'm not sure how
common that is.