linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/2] mm/zswap: optimize the scalability of zswap rb-tree

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: Wed, 17 Jan 2024 17:03:27 -0800
From: Chris Li <chrisl@...nel.org>
To: Yosry Ahmed <yosryahmed@...gle.com>
Cc: Chengming Zhou <zhouchengming@...edance.com>, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, 
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>, linux-mm@...ck.org, 
	Nhat Pham <nphamcs@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] mm/zswap: optimize the scalability of zswap rb-tree

Hi Yosry,

On Wed, Jan 17, 2024 at 4:35 PM Yosry Ahmed <yosryahmed@...gle.com> wrote:
> Hmm I don't understand. What's the point of keeping the rbtree if we
> have the xarray? Doesn't it end up being more expensive and bug-prone
> to maintain both trees?

Patch 2/2 remove the rb tree code. Just keeping the tree spinlock.

>
> When you say "eventual goal", do you mean what the patch would morph
> into in later versions (as in v1 is just a proof of concept without
> removing the rbtree), or follow up patches?

V1 will remove the rb tree, but does not merge the rb tree lock with
the xarray lock.

Hi Nhat,

> Hmmm why? Is there a reason to keep the rb tree around?

No, not at all.


Chris