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: <YekcNmBqcpO9BYWv@dhcp22.suse.cz>
Date:   Thu, 20 Jan 2022 09:24:22 +0100
From:   Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>
To:     Minchan Kim <minchan@...nel.org>
Cc:     Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>,
        linux-mm <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@...gle.com>,
        John Dias <joaodias@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [RESEND][PATCH v2] mm: don't call lru draining in the nested
 lru_cache_disable

On Wed 19-01-22 20:25:54, Minchan Kim wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 19, 2022 at 10:20:22AM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
[...]
> > What does prevent you from calling lru_cache_{disable,enable} this way
> > with the existing implementation? AFAICS calls can be nested just fine.
> > Or am I missing something?
> 
> It just increases more IPI calls since we drain the lru cache
> both upper layer and lower layer. That's I'd like to avoid
> in this patch. Just disable lru cache one time for entire
> allocation path.

I do not follow. Once you call lru_cache_disable at the higher level
then no new pages are going to be added to the pcp caches. At the same
time existing caches are flushed so the inner lru_cache_disable will not
trigger any new IPIs.

-- 
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ