linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH] mutex: Apply adaptive spinning on mutex

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:	Wed, 23 Mar 2011 16:52:06 +0100
From:	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Chris Mason <chris.mason@...cle.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-btrfs@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] mutex: Apply adaptive spinning on mutex_trylock()

On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 08:48:01AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 8:37 AM, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org> wrote:
> >
> > Currently, mutex_trylock() doesn't use adaptive spinning.  It tries
> > just once.  I got curious whether using adaptive spinning on
> > mutex_trylock() would be beneficial and it seems so, at least for
> > btrfs anyway.
> 
> Hmm. Seems reasonable to me. The patch looks clean, although part of
> that is just the mutex_spin() cleanup that is independent of actually
> using it in trylock.

Oh, I have two split patches.  Posted the combined one for comments.

> So no objections from me.

Awesome.  Peter, what do you think?  Are there some other tests which
can be useful?

Thanks.

-- 
tejun
--
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/