linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH v2 1/6] slub: Keep track of whether slub is on the per-node partial list

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:   Tue, 24 Oct 2023 09:57:25 +0800
From:   Chengming Zhou <chengming.zhou@...ux.dev>
To:     Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>
Cc:     cl@...ux.com, penberg@...nel.org, rientjes@...gle.com,
        iamjoonsoo.kim@....com, akpm@...ux-foundation.org, vbabka@...e.cz,
        roman.gushchin@...ux.dev, 42.hyeyoo@...il.com, pcc@...gle.com,
        tytso@....edu, maz@...nel.org, ruansy.fnst@...itsu.com,
        vishal.moola@...il.com, lrh2000@....edu.cn, hughd@...gle.com,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
        Chengming Zhou <zhouchengming@...edance.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2 1/6] slub: Keep track of whether slub is on the
 per-node partial list

On 2023/10/24 00:22, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 23, 2023 at 01:32:27PM +0100, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
>> _Assuming_ that it's safe to use the non-atomic flag setting, I'd
>> rather see this done as ...
>>
>> static inline void slab_set_node_partial(struct slab *slab)
>> {
>> 	__folio_set_workingset(slab_folio(slab));
> 
> Ugh, I meant to delete this line.  I meant to just write the next line.
> 
>> 	__set_bit(PG_workingset, folio_flags(slab_folio(slab), 0));
>> }

Yes, it's safe to use the non-atomic version here, since it's protected
by the slub per-node list_lock and we want better performance here.

Ok, will change to directly use __set_bit() and __clear_bit() instead of
polluting the "workingset" interfaces there.

Thanks.