linux-kernel - Re: [linus:master] [x86] 4817f70c25: stress-ng.mmapaddr.ops_per

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <13f95d28b0110a87b492d46e9810af51b33a23c8.camel@surriel.com>
Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2025 11:57:19 -0500
From: Rik van Riel <riel@...riel.com>
To: Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@...nel.org>, "Paul E. McKenney"
	 <paulmck@...nel.org>
Cc: Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>, Qi Zheng
 <zhengqi.arch@...edance.com>,  Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, David
 Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>, kernel test robot	 <oliver.sang@...el.com>,
 oe-lkp@...ts.linux.dev, lkp@...el.com, 	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
 Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, Dave Hansen
 <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>, Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>, Catalin
 Marinas	 <catalin.marinas@....com>, David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
 Hugh Dickins	 <hughd@...gle.com>, Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>, Lorenzo
 Stoakes	 <lorenzo.stoakes@...cle.com>, Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>, Muchun
 Song	 <muchun.song@...ux.dev>, Peter Xu <peterx@...hat.com>, Will Deacon	
 <will@...nel.org>, Zach O'Keefe <zokeefe@...gle.com>, Dan Carpenter	
 <dan.carpenter@...aro.org>, Neeraj Upadhyay <neeraj.upadhyay@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [linus:master] [x86] 4817f70c25: stress-ng.mmapaddr.ops_per_sec
 63.0% regression

On Wed, 2025-01-29 at 17:53 +0100, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> Le Wed, Jan 29, 2025 at 08:36:12AM -0800, Paul E. McKenney a écrit :
> > 
> > So it won't prevent RCU callbacks from being invoked.
> > 
> > It *will* ensure that only a finite number of RCU callbacks get
> > invoked.
> > For some perhaps rather large value of "finite".
> > 
> > Does that help, or is more required?
> 
> I don't fully understand the issue either but would spin_lock_bh()
> help?

Was that a jinx, or an ack to that latest patch? ;)

-- 
All Rights Reversed.