linux-kernel - Re: Why Semaphore Hardware-Dependent?

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:	Sun, 27 Aug 2006 23:39:08 +0200
From:	Andi Kleen <ak@...e.de>
To:	Christoph Lameter <clameter@....com>
Cc:	Dong Feng <middle.fengdong@...il.com>,
	Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Why Semaphore Hardware-Dependent?

On Sunday 27 August 2006 23:05, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> On Sun, 27 Aug 2006, Andi Kleen wrote:
> 
> > rwsems don't -- there are two flavours: a generic spinlock'ed one and a 
> > complicated atomic based one that only works on some architectures. 
> > As far as I know nobody has demonstrated a clear performance increase
> > from the first so it might be possible to switch all to the generic
> > implementation.
> 
> Yup that would be the major issue.I'd be interested to see some tests in 
> that area.

x86-64 always uses the spinlocked version (vs i386 using the atomic one)
and I haven't heard of anybody complaining.

-Andi
-
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/