linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/4] workqueue: Reorder the fields in struct workqueue

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: <ZgHIAjijs2_aaWMj@slm.duckdns.org>
Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2024 08:52:50 -1000
From: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To: Lai Jiangshan <jiangshanlai@...il.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Lai Jiangshan <jiangshan.ljs@...group.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/4] workqueue: Reorder the fields in struct
 workqueue_attrs

Hello,

On Fri, Mar 08, 2024 at 05:42:51PM +0800, Lai Jiangshan wrote:
> From: Lai Jiangshan <jiangshan.ljs@...group.com>
> 
> So that its size is reduced from 40 to 32 in 64bit kernel, and it can be
> saved more when allocated with kmalloc() in alloc_workqueue_attrs().

Does this matter tho? Also, the sizing would be dependent on the number of
supported CPUs, right?

So, before, the order was - nice, cpumasks, affinity scope related stuff,
and then ordered flag. After, the cpumasks and affinity scope stuff are
mixed. Unless the saving is actually meaningful, I'd rather keep the current
ordering.

Thanks.

-- 
tejun