linux-kernel - Re: Two other ways to do latched seqcounts

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, 13 Apr 2015 12:38:16 +0200
From:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:	George Spelvin <linux@...izon.com>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Two other ways to do latched seqcounts

On Mon, Apr 13, 2015 at 05:26:05AM -0400, George Spelvin wrote:
> > I'm assuming you're writing to me because of the latched rb-tree;
> > because that's the most recent related thing I posted ;-)
> 
> Basically yes, although it was the documentation you added to the
> latched seqlock code in particular.
> 
> I haven't checked the users of your rb-tree code to see how large and
> frequently read the trees are, but if a read is expensive, then avoiding
> retries by incrementing the seqlock twice per update starts to become
> interesting.

Right, so I use it for modules, and updates are near non existent
under normal usage.
--
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/