linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH] bit_spinlock: introduce smp_cond_load

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:   Sat, 13 Oct 2018 15:30:05 +0800
From:   Gao Xiang <hsiangkao@....com>
To:     Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Cc:     Philippe Ombredanne <pombredanne@...b.com>,
        Kate Stewart <kstewart@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Miao Xie <miaoxie@...wei.com>,
        Chao Yu <chao@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] bit_spinlock: introduce smp_cond_load_relaxed

On 2018/10/13 15:22, Gao Xiang wrote:
> For other architectures like x86/arm64, I think they could implement
> smp_cond_load_* later.

Sorry about that, I mean "amd64".

Actually I don't have performance numbers to proof that now. I think
it really depends on the detailed architecture hardware implementation.

In my opinion, I just think it is better to wrap it up rather than
do open-coded all around...
do {
  cpu_relax()
} while(...);

I was just cleaning up EROFS file system, and saw these piece of code
(bit_spinlock) by chance. Therefore I write a patch to get some idea
about it....

Thanks,
Gao Xiang