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]
Date:   Fri, 18 Nov 2022 12:18:42 -0800
From:   Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To:     Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>
Cc:     Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
        "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill@...temov.name>,
        Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>,
        David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>,
        Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>, Peter Xu <peterx@...hat.com>,
        Yang Shi <shy828301@...il.com>,
        John Hubbard <jhubbard@...dia.com>,
        Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@...cle.com>,
        Sidhartha Kumar <sidhartha.kumar@...cle.com>,
        Muchun Song <songmuchun@...edance.com>,
        Miaohe Lin <linmiaohe@...wei.com>,
        Naoya Horiguchi <naoya.horiguchi@...ux.dev>,
        Mina Almasry <almasrymina@...gle.com>,
        James Houghton <jthoughton@...gle.com>,
        "Zach O'Keefe" <zokeefe@...gle.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-mm@...ck.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] mm,thp,rmap: rework the use of subpages_mapcount

On Fri, Nov 18, 2022 at 1:08 AM Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com> wrote:
>
> Linus was underwhelmed by the earlier compound mapcounts series:
> this series builds on top of it (as in next-20221117) to follow
> up on his suggestions - except rmap.c still using lock_page_memcg(),
> since I hesitate to steal the pleasure of deletion from Johannes.

This looks good to me. Particularly 2/3 made me go "Aww, yes" but the
overall line removal stats look good too.

That said, I only looked at the patches, and not the end result
itself. But not having the bit spin lock is, I think, a huge
improvement.

I do wonder if this should be now just merged with your previous
series - it looks a bit odd how your previous series adds that
bitlock, only for it to be immediately removed.

But if you think the logic ends up being easier to follow this way as
two separate patch series, I guess I don't care.

And the memcg locking is entirely a separate issue, and I hope
Johannes will deal with that.

Thanks,
              Linus

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ