linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/1] rcu/rcuscale: Stop kfree_scale_thread thread(s) after unloading rcuscale

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: <2B9F2C1A-B274-41EF-8ABE-1E660521BCE4@joelfernandes.org>
Date:   Thu, 16 Mar 2023 09:28:31 -0400
From:   Joel Fernandes <joel@...lfernandes.org>
To:     "Zhuo, Qiuxu" <qiuxu.zhuo@...el.com>
Cc:     paulmck@...nel.org, Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@...nel.org>,
        Josh Triplett <josh@...htriplett.org>,
        Neeraj Upadhyay <quic_neeraju@...cinc.com>,
        Davidlohr Bueso <dave@...olabs.net>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
        Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>,
        Lai Jiangshan <jiangshanlai@...il.com>, rcu@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] rcu/rcuscale: Stop kfree_scale_thread thread(s) after unloading rcuscale


> On Mar 16, 2023, at 9:17 AM, Zhuo, Qiuxu <qiuxu.zhuo@...el.com> wrote:
> 
> 
>> 
>> From: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@...nel.org>
>> [...]
>>>> 
>>>> How about to pull the rcu_scale_cleanup() function after
>> kfree_scale_cleanup().
>>>> This groups kfree_* functions and groups rcu_scale_* functions.
>>>> Then the code would look cleaner.
>>>> So, do you think the changes below are better?
>>> 
>>> IMHO, I don't think doing such a code move is better. Just add a new
>>> header file and declare the function there. But see what Paul says
>>> first.
>> 
>> This situation is likely to be an early hint that the kvfree_rcu() testing should
>> be split out from kernel/rcu/rcuscale.c.
> 
> Another is that it's a bit expensive to create a new header file just for 
> eliminating a function declaration. ;-)

What is so expensive about new files? It is a natural organization structure.

> So, if no objections, I'd like to send out the v2 patch with the updates below:
> 
>   - Move rcu_scale_cleanup() after kfree_scale_cleanup() to eliminate the
>     declaration of kfree_scale_cleanup(). Though this makes the patch bigger, 
>     get the file rcuscale.c much cleaner.
> 
>   - Remove the unnecessary step "modprobe torture" from the commit message.
> 
>   - Add the description for why move rcu_scale_cleanup() after
>     kfree_scale_cleanup() to the commit message.

Honestly if you are moving so many lines around, you may as well split it out into a new module.

The kfree stuff being clubbed in the same file has also been a major annoyance.

 - Joel 


> Thanks!
> -Qiuxu
> 
>> [...]