linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 4/4] drm/ttm: Optimize reservation slightly

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Mon, 05 Nov 2012 15:09:26 +0100
From:	Thomas Hellstrom <thellstrom@...are.com>
To:	Maarten Lankhorst <maarten.lankhorst@...onical.com>
CC:	airlied@...il.com, airlied@...hat.com,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/4] drm/ttm: Optimize reservation slightly

On 11/05/2012 03:01 PM, Maarten Lankhorst wrote:
> Hey,
>
> Op 05-11-12 14:31, Thomas Hellstrom schreef:
>> Reservation locking currently always takes place under the LRU spinlock.
>> Hence, strictly there is no need for an atomic_cmpxchg call; we can use
>> atomic_read followed by atomic_write since nobody else will ever reserve
>> without the lru spinlock held.
>> At least on Intel this should remove a locked bus cycle on successful
>> reserve.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Thomas Hellstrom <thellstrom@...are.com>
>>
> Is that really a good thing to submit when I am busy killing lru lock around reserve? :-)
>

If your patch series makes it into the same kernel, let's kill this 
patch. Otherwise it may live
at least for a kernel release. It's not a big thing to rebase against, 
and I won't complain if your
patch adds another atomic read-modify-write op here. :)

/Thomas

--
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/