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: <20070128153414.GD23410@infradead.org>
Date:	Sun, 28 Jan 2007 15:34:14 +0000
From:	Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
To:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Cc:	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

On Sun, Jan 28, 2007 at 04:24:35PM +0100, Ingo Molnar 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.

Thanks for the wonderful and indepth explanation </sarcasm>
-
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/