linux-kernel - Re: Linux 3.1-rc9

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:	Mon, 17 Oct 2011 11:31:46 -0700
From:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
Cc:	Simon Kirby <sim@...tway.ca>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Dave Jones <davej@...hat.com>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@...ibm.com>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Subject: Re: Linux 3.1-rc9

On Mon, Oct 17, 2011 at 10:54 AM, Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl> wrote:
>
> I could of course propose this... but I really won't since I'm half
> retching by now.. ;-)

Wow. Is this "ugly and fragile code week" and I just didn't get the memo?

I do wonder if we might not fix the problem by just taking the
*existing* lock in the right order?

IOW, how nasty would be it be to make "scheduler_tick()" just get the
cputimer->lock outside or rq->lock?

Sure, we'd hold that lock *much* longer than we need, but how much do
we care? Is that a lock that gets contention? It migth be the simple
solution for now - I *would* like to get 3.1 out..

                        Linus
--
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/