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: <CAM4kBB+oHqn=AAqKrxgN=e7iyRiZs0HDx8J585Vugf4kyWfF5Q@mail.gmail.com> Date: Wed, 2 Mar 2022 11:19:21 +0100 From: Vitaly Wool <vitaly.wool@...sulko.com> To: David Laight <David.Laight@...lab.com> Cc: Miaohe Lin <linmiaohe@...wei.com>, "linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>, "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, "akpm@...ux-foundation.org" <akpm@...ux-foundation.org> Subject: Re: [PATCH 6/9] mm/z3fold: move decrement of pool->pages_nr into __release_z3fold_page() On Wed, Mar 2, 2022 at 10:12 AM David Laight <David.Laight@...lab.com> wrote: > > > > Atomic operations aren't magic. > > > Atomic operations are (at best) one slow locked bus cycle. > > > Acquiring a lock is the same. > > > Releasing a lock might be cheaper, but is probably a locked bus cycle. > > > > > > So if you use state_lock to protect pages_nr then you lose an atomic > > > operation for the decrement and gain one (for the unlock) in the increment. > > > That is even or maybe a slight gain. > > > OTOH a 64bit atomic is a PITA on some 32bit systems. > > > (In fact any atomic is a PITA on sparc32.) > > > > It's actually *stale_lock* and it's very misleading to use it for this. > > I would actually like to keep atomics but I have no problem with > > making it 32-bit for 32-bit systems. Would that work for you guys? > > It would be better to rename the lock. No it would not because that lock is protecting the list of entries that could not be immediately freed. ~Vitaly
Powered by blists - more mailing lists