linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 4/4] hugetlbfs: replace hugetlb_vma_lock with invalidate

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:   Tue, 17 Oct 2023 09:47:30 -0400
From:   Rik van Riel <riel@...riel.com>
To:     Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@...cle.com>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kernel-team@...a.com,
        linux-mm@...ck.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
        muchun.song@...ux.dev, leit@...a.com, willy@...radead.org,
        Ray Fucillo <Ray.Fucillo@...ersystems.com>,
        Jacklin Kotikian <Jacklin.Kotikian@...ersystems.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/4] hugetlbfs: replace hugetlb_vma_lock with
 invalidate_lock

On Mon, 2023-10-16 at 17:52 -0700, Mike Kravetz wrote:
> 
> The Combined faults number drops by over 50%.  This is not nearly as
> dramatic
> as the changes originally seen.  However, I do expect that there will
> be
> a noticeable performance regression.  Ray may be able to help running
> real
> workloads on real applications and database.
> 
> I suggest we hold off on adding this change until further, more real
> world
> analysis can be performed.  The simplification of the code is nice,
> but I
> would hate to regress any workloads.

Agreed. Thank you for running those tests.

Andrew, would it be possible to drop patch 4/4 from -mm?


-- 
All Rights Reversed.