[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ZBjPtV7xrAQ/l9nD@bombadil.infradead.org>
Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2023 14:27:17 -0700
From: Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof@...nel.org>
To: David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>,
Adam Manzanares <a.manzanares@...sung.com>
Cc: linux-modules@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
pmladek@...e.com, petr.pavlu@...e.com, prarit@...hat.com,
christophe.leroy@...roup.eu, song@...nel.org,
torvalds@...ux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [RFC 00/12] module: avoid userspace pressure on unwanted
allocations
On Mon, Mar 20, 2023 at 02:23:36PM -0700, Luis Chamberlain wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 20, 2023 at 10:15:23PM +0100, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> > Not able to reproduce with 20230319-module-alloc-opts so far (2 tries).
>
> Oh wow, so to clarify, it boots OK?
>
Now that we know that tree works, I'm curious also now if you can
confirm just re-ordering the patches still works (it should)
https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/mcgrof/linux.git/log/?h=20230319-module-alloc-opts-adjust
And although it's *probably* just noise, but I'm very curious how much,
if any difference there is if you just revert "module: use
list_add_tail_rcu() when adding module".
The data on that commit log is pretty small as I have a low end system,
and I'm not yet done beating the hell out of a system with stress-ng,
but getting some data froma pretty large system would be great.
Specially if this series seems to prove fixing boot on them.
Luis
Powered by blists - more mailing lists