linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH V2 0/2] enable irqs when waiting for rwlocks

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:	Fri, 31 Oct 2008 09:52:22 +0100
From:	Petr Tesarik <ptesarik@...e.cz>
To:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc:	linux-ia64@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH V2 0/2] enable irqs when waiting for rwlocks

On Thu, 2008-10-23 at 18:08 +0200, Petr Tesarik wrote:
> New in V2:
>  * get rid of ugly #ifdef's in kernel/spinlock.h
>  * convert __raw_{read|write}_lock_flags to an inline func
> 
> SGI has observed that on large systems, interrupts are not serviced for
> a long period of time when waiting for a rwlock. The following patch
> series re-enables irqs while waiting for the lock, resembling the code
> which is already there for spinlocks.
> 
> I only made the ia64 version, because the patch adds some overhead to
> the fast path. I assume there is currently no demand to have this for
> other architectures, because the systems are not so large. Of course,
> the possibility to implement raw_{read|write}_lock_flags for any
> architecture is still there.
> 
> Petr Tesarik

Any comments on my second patch series? Not even an Acked-by? Dislike of
the concept? Should I post it again?

I feel a bit too uncertain what the status is...

Petr

--
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/