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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <20240906141520.730009-1-bigeasy@linutronix.de> Date: Fri, 6 Sep 2024 16:14:42 +0200 From: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de> To: linux-block@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org Cc: Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>, Mike Galbraith <umgwanakikbuti@...il.com>, Minchan Kim <minchan@...nel.org>, Sergey Senozhatsky <senozhatsky@...omium.org>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, Alexander Lobakin <aleksander.lobakin@...el.com> Subject: [PATCH v4 0/3] zram: Replace bit spinlocks with a spinlock_t. Hi, this is follow up to the previous posting, making the lock unconditionally. The original problem with bit spinlock is that it disabled preemption and the following operations (within the atomic section) perform operations that may sleep on PREEMPT_RT. Mike expressed that he would like to keep using zram on PREEMPT_RT. v3…v4: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-block/20240705125058.1564001-1-bigeasy@linutronix.de - Inline lock init into zram_meta_alloc(). v2…v3 https://lore.kernel.org/all/20240620153556.777272-1-bigeasy@linutronix.de/ - Do "size_t index" within the for loop. v1…v2: https://lore.kernel.org/all/20240619150814.BRAvaziM@linutronix.de/: - Add the spinlock_t unconditionally - Remove ZRAM_LOCK since it has no user after the lock has been added. - Make zram_table_entry::flags an integer so struct zram_table_entry does not gain additional weight. Sebastian
Powered by blists - more mailing lists