linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 3/7] barrier: a scalable synchonisation barrier

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: <20070128152435.GC9196@elte.hu>
Date:	Sun, 28 Jan 2007 16:24:35 +0100
From:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To:	Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/7] barrier: a scalable synchonisation barrier


* Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org> wrote:

> On Sun, Jan 28, 2007 at 12:51:21PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > This barrier thing is constructed so that it will not write in the 
> > sync() condition (the hot path) when there are no active lock 
> > sections; thus avoiding cacheline bouncing. -- I'm just not sure how 
> > this will work out in relation to PI. We might track those in the 
> > barrier scope and boost those by the max prio of the blockers.
> 
> Is this really needed?  We seem to grow new funky locking algorithms 
> exponentially, while people already have a hard time understanding the 
> existing ones.

yes, it's needed.

	Ingo
-
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/