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
| ||
|
Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2009 23:49:12 -0800 From: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org> To: Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz> Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 01/11] quota: Improve locking On Fri, 16 Jan 2009 19:08:09 +0100 Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz> wrote: > static DEFINE_SPINLOCK(dq_list_lock); > +static DEFINE_SPINLOCK(dq_state_lock); > DEFINE_SPINLOCK(dq_data_lock); The chances are very good that two or even three of these locks will all get placed into the same cacheline in main memory. The effects will be quite bad if different CPUs (or, worse, different nodes) are taking these locks. For single, kernel-wide locks like these I think we should almost always pad out to a cacheline. With __cacheline_aligned_in_smp, rather than __cacheline_aligned. Because spinlocks do take space even in uniprocessor builds. There are probably lots of existing locks which should be converted. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists