linux-kernel - Re: [rfc] [patch 1/2] spin_lock_irq: Enable interrupts while spinning -- preperatory patch

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: <20070103001635.ecbd74e5.akpm@osdl.org>
Date:	Wed, 3 Jan 2007 00:16:35 -0800
From:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>
To:	Ravikiran G Thirumalai <kiran@...lex86.org>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Andi Kleen <ak@...e.de>,
	"Shai Fultheim (Shai@...lex86.org)" <shai@...lex86.org>,
	pravin b shelar <pravin.shelar@...softinc.com>,
	"Benzi Galili (Benzi@...leMP.com)" <benzi@...lemp.com>
Subject: Re: [rfc] [patch 1/2] spin_lock_irq: Enable interrupts while
 spinning -- preperatory patch

On Tue, 2 Jan 2007 23:59:23 -0800
Ravikiran G Thirumalai <kiran@...lex86.org> wrote:

> The following patches do just that. The first patch is preparatory in nature
> and the second one changes the  x86_64 implementation of spin_lock_irq.
> Patch passed overnight runs of kernbench and dbench on 4 way x86_64 smp.

The end result of this is, I think, that i386 enables irqs while spinning
in spin_lock_irqsave() but not while spinning in spin_lock_irq().  And
x86_64 does the opposite.

Odd, isn't it?
-
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/