linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/2] Implement numa node notifier

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: <Z-1tzl2NqqRUYyU-@localhost.localdomain>
Date: Wed, 2 Apr 2025 19:03:10 +0200
From: Oscar Salvador <osalvador@...e.de>
To: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Hyeonggon Yoo <42.hyeyoo@...il.com>,
	mkoutny@...e.com, Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
	Jonathan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron@...wei.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] Implement numa node notifier

On Wed, Apr 02, 2025 at 06:06:51PM +0200, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> What if we had two chains:
> 
> register_node_notifier()
> register_node_normal_notifier()
> 
> I think they could have shared the state #defines and struct node_notify
> would have just one nid and be always >= 0.
> 
> Or would it add too much extra boilerplate and only slab cares?

We could indeed go on that direction to try to decouple
status_change_nid from status_change_nid_normal.

Although as you said, slub is the only user of status_change_nid_normal
for the time beign, so I am not sure of adding a second chain for only
one user.

Might look cleaner though, and the advantatge is that slub would not get
notified for nodes adquiring only ZONE_MOVABLE.

Let us see what David thinks about it.

thanks for the suggestion ;-)

-- 
Oscar Salvador
SUSE Labs