linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH, RFC] hacks to allow -rt to run kernbench on POWER

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]

Date:	Thu, 01 Nov 2007 08:15:28 +1100
From:	Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>
To:	Darren Hart <dvhltc@...ibm.com>
Cc:	paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	tony@...eyournoodle.com, paulus@...ba.org, dino@...ibm.com,
	tytso@...ibm.com, antonb@...ibm.com, rostedt@...dmis.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH, RFC] hacks to allow -rt to run kernbench on POWER

> So as Paul mentioned, spin_lock is now a mutex.  There is a new
> raw_spinlock however (simply change the way it is declared, calling
> conventions are the same) which is used in a very few areas where a
> traditional spin_lock is truly necessary.  This may or may not be one of
> those times, but I wanted to point it out.

Yeah, I figured that. My main worry has more to do with some fishy
assumptions the powerpc VM code does regarding what can and cannot
happen in those locked sections, among other things. I'll have to sit
and think about it for a little while to convince myself we are ok ...
or not. Plus we do keep track of various MM related things in per-CPU
data structures but it looks like Paul already spotted that.

Cheers,
Ben.

-
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/