linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH/RFC 0/5] cpu_relax: introduce yield, remove lowlatency

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, 21 Oct 2016 10:57:27 -0400 (EDT)
From:   David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To:     borntraeger@...ibm.com
Cc:     peterz@...radead.org, npiggin@...il.com,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-s390@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-arch@...r.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org,
        heiko.carstens@...ibm.com, schwidefsky@...ibm.com, noamc@...hip.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH/RFC 0/5] cpu_relax: introduce yield, remove lowlatency

From: Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@...ibm.com>
Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2016 13:58:53 +0200

> For spinning loops people did often use barrier() or cpu_relax().
> For most architectures cpu_relax and barrier are the same, but on
> some architectures cpu_relax can add some latency. For example on s390
> cpu_relax gives up the time slice to the hypervisor. On power cpu_relax
> tries to give some of the CPU to the neighbor threads. To reduce the
> latency another variant cpu_relax_lowlatency was introduced. Before this
> is used in more and more places, lets revert the logic of provide a new
> function cpu_relax_yield that can spend some time and for s390 yields
> the guest CPU.

Sparc64, fwiw, behaves similarly to powerpc.