netdev - Re: [Intel-wired-lan] [Patch V3 5/9] i40e: Use numa_mem

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: <20151008132037.fc3887da0818e7d011cb752f@linux-foundation.org>
Date:	Thu, 8 Oct 2015 13:20:37 -0700
From:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>
Cc:	"Patil, Kiran" <kiran.patil@...el.com>,
	Jiang Liu <jiang.liu@...ux.intel.com>,
	Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>,
	Mike Galbraith <umgwanakikbuti@...il.com>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	"Wysocki, Rafael J" <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>,
	Tang Chen <tangchen@...fujitsu.com>, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
	"Kirsher, Jeffrey T" <jeffrey.t.kirsher@...el.com>,
	"Brandeburg, Jesse" <jesse.brandeburg@...el.com>,
	"Nelson, Shannon" <shannon.nelson@...el.com>,
	"Wyborny, Carolyn" <carolyn.wyborny@...el.com>,
	"Skidmore, Donald C" <donald.c.skidmore@...el.com>,
	"Vick, Matthew" <matthew.vick@...el.com>,
	"Ronciak, John" <john.ronciak@...el.com>,
	"Williams, Mitch A" <mitch.a.williams@...el.com>,
	"Luck, Tony" <tony.luck@...el.com>,
	"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	"x86@...nel.org" <x86@...nel.org>,
	"linux-hotplug@...r.kernel.org" <linux-hotplug@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
	"intel-wired-lan@...ts.osuosl.org" <intel-wired-lan@...ts.osuosl.org>
Subject: Re: [Intel-wired-lan] [Patch V3 5/9] i40e: Use numa_mem_id() to
 better support memoryless node

On Wed, 19 Aug 2015 17:18:15 -0700 (PDT) David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com> wrote:

> On Wed, 19 Aug 2015, Patil, Kiran wrote:
> 
> > Acked-by: Kiran Patil <kiran.patil@...el.com>
> 
> Where's the call to preempt_disable() to prevent kernels with preemption 
> from making numa_node_id() invalid during this iteration?

David asked this question twice, received no answer and now the patch
is in the maintainer tree, destined for mainline.

If I was asked this question I would respond

  The use of numa_mem_id() is racy and best-effort.  If the unlikely
  race occurs, the memory allocation will occur on the wrong node, the
  overall result being very slightly suboptimal performance.  The
  existing use of numa_node_id() suffers from the same issue.

But I'm not the person proposing the patch.  Please don't just ignore
reviewer comments!

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html