linux-kernel - RE: Regarding WQ_MEM

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Fri, 26 Aug 2022 07:07:57 +0000
From:   "Xue, Zhan" <zhan.xue@...el.com>
To:     "tj@...nel.org" <tj@...nel.org>
CC:     "florian@...kler.org" <florian@...kler.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: RE: Regarding WQ_MEM_RECLAIM

Hi Tejun,
      The brief point seems the answer to one concern about " workqueue: WQ_MEM_RECLAIM (current wq) is flushing !WQ_MEM_RECLAIM events:(target wq)".   If current wq is for memory reclaim , the target wq should be marked with WQ_MEM_RECLAIM as well in case that the flushing target wq  (its work items) in the context of current wq is  inevitable.


BR
Xuezhan
-----Original Message-----
From: Tejun Heo <htejun@...il.com> On Behalf Of tj@...nel.org
Sent: Friday, August 26, 2022 2:03 AM
To: Xue, Zhan <zhan.xue@...el.com>
Cc: florian@...kler.org; LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Regarding WQ_MEM_RECLAIM

On Wed, Aug 24, 2022 at 06:10:56AM +0000, Xue, Zhan wrote:
> Convert to plain text..

The email's formatting is too painful to reply directly.

Here are two brief points:

* Just don't share the same workqueue between work items which need forward
  progress guarantee and ones which don't.

* If something can block memory reclaim, it is in the memory reclaim path by
  definition.

Thanks.

-- 
tejun