linux-kernel - Re: [patch] queued spinlocks (i386)

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-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Sun, 25 Mar 2007 19:54:07 +0400
From:	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...sign.ru>
To:	Nick Piggin <npiggin@...e.de>,
	Ravikiran G Thirumalai <kiran@...lex86.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Nikita Danilov <nikita@...sterfs.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [patch] queued spinlocks (i386)

I am sorry for being completely off-topic, but I've been wondering for the
long time...

What if we replace raw_spinlock_t.slock with "struct task_struct *owner" ?

	void _spin_lock(spinlock_t *lock)
	{
		struct task_struct *owner;

		for (;;) {
			preempt_disable();
			if (likely(_raw_spin_trylock(lock)))
				break;
			preempt_enable();

			while (!spin_can_lock(lock)) {
				rcu_read_lock();
				owner = lock->owner;
				if (owner && current->prio < owner->prio &&
				    !test_tsk_thread_flag(owner, TIF_NEED_RESCHED))
					set_tsk_thread_flag(owner, TIF_NEED_RESCHED);
				rcu_read_unlock();
				cpu_relax();
			}
		}

		lock->owner = current;
	}

	void _spin_unlock(spinlock_t *lock)
	{
		lock->owner = NULL;
		_raw_spin_unlock(lock);
		preempt_enable();
	}

Now we don't need need_lockbreak(lock), need_resched() is enough, and we take
->prio into consideration.

Makes sense? Or stupid?

Oleg.

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/