linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 3/3] WorkStruct: Use direct assignment rather than cmpxchg()

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]

Message-ID: <639.1165521999@redhat.com>
Date:	Thu, 07 Dec 2006 20:06:39 +0000
From:	David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>
To:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>
Cc:	David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>, torvalds@...l.org,
	davem@...emloft.com, wli@...omorphy.com, matthew@....cx,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] WorkStruct: Use direct assignment rather than cmpxchg() 

Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org> wrote:

> and we can assume (and ensure) that a failing test_and_set_bit() will not
> write to the affected word at all.

You may not assume that; and indeed that is not so in the generic
spinlock-based bitops or ARM pre-v6 or PA-RISC or sparc32 or ...

Remember: if you have to put a conditional jump in there, it's going to fail
one way or the other a certain percentage of the time, and that's going to
cause a pipeline stall, and these ops are used quite a lot.

OTOH, I don't know that the stall would be that bad since the spin_lock and
spin_unlock may cause a stall anyway.

David
-
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/