Re: [PATCH v5] KEYS: key_garbage_collector(): process in chunks

[Jarkko Sakkinen]

On Fri, Oct 30, 2026 at 05:21:49PM +0200, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 30, 2026 at 05:17:34PM +0200, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> > On Fri, Oct 30, 2026 at 02:10:06PM +0800, Hillf Danton wrote:
> > > On Fri, 30 Oct 2026 02:22:06 +0200 Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> > > > On Fri, Oct 30, 2026 at 02:17:31AM +0200, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> > > > > On Fri, Oct 30, 2026 at 07:41:48AM +0800, Hillf Danton wrote:
> > > > > > On Thu, 29 Oct 2026 19:29:17 +0200 Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> > > > > > > key_garbage_collector() has a design that is not resistant enough for
> > > > > > > workqueue lockups. The duration scales up relative to the number of items
> > > > > > > in the serial tree, which causes a reoccuring theme of being guilty of
> > > > > > > causing workqueue lockups.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > Given cond_resched() the gc work is not a cpu hog, and given concurrency
> > > > > > workqueue can get individual cpu highly overloaded in short time, so what
> > > > > > you delivered is a half backed croissant, HBC, as you failed to make it
> > > > > > clear why lockup occurs when the number of gc items rockets up.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Please, read:
> > > > > 
> > > > > 1. Documentation/process/code-of-conduct-interpretation.rst
> > > > > 2. Documentation/process/code-of-conduct.rst
> > > > 
> > > > And: I'd suggest to do some self-reflection and not use LKML for
> > > > trolling. There's 4chan, Reddit and other more appriate forums for
> > > > doing that.
> > > > 
> > > Can you answer the simple question, why is your patch correct for curing
> > > the root cause of the workqueue lockup? Because it has nothing to do with
> > > trolling.
> > 
> > No.
> 
> But I will file the complaint at least if this nonsense won't stop
> otherwise. This is now second time where you give nothing except random
> snippets, neither explain nor help,  use toxic language, cherry pick
> and weaponize words from previous discussions, and generally seem
> to try to put other people in a bad position.
> 
> I did search over lore and there's a pattern of this behaviour.

E.g., in this case the constructive version would be to **sugggest**
of dropping fixed/closes tag. As I DO NOT CARE of closing a random
syzkaller bug as much you do.

I will repost a new version of patch with just that change. You can keep
your bot thanks. It has nothing to do with the usefulness of the change,
and whether I agree or disagree with anything. I just want to get rid
of your trolling.

Br, Jarkko