linux-kernel - Re: [rfc][patch] queued spinlocks (i386)

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: <17925.29368.942606.691598@gargle.gargle.HOWL>
Date:	Sat, 24 Mar 2007 21:49:28 +0300
From:	Nikita Danilov <nikita@...sterfs.com>
To:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Cc:	Nick Piggin <npiggin@...e.de>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Ravikiran G Thirumalai <kiran@...lex86.org>
Subject: Re: [rfc][patch] queued spinlocks (i386)

Ingo Molnar writes:
 > 
 > * Nikita Danilov <nikita@...sterfs.com> wrote:
 > 
 > > Indeed, this technique is very well known. E.g., 
 > > http://citeseer.ist.psu.edu/anderson01sharedmemory.html has a whole 
 > > section (3. Local-spin Algorithms) on them, citing papers from the 
 > > 1990 onward.
 > 
 > that is a cool reference! So i'd suggest to do (redo?) the patch based 
 > on those concepts and that terminology and not use 'queued spinlocks' 

There is some old version:

http://namesys.com/pub/misc-patches/unsupported/extra/2004.02.04/p06-locallock.patch
http://namesys.com/pub/misc-patches/unsupported/extra/2004.02.04/p07-locallock-bkl.patch
http://namesys.com/pub/misc-patches/unsupported/extra/2004.02.04/p08-locallock-zone.patch

http://namesys.com/pub/misc-patches/unsupported/extra/2004.02.04/p0b-atomic_dec_and_locallock.patch
http://namesys.com/pub/misc-patches/unsupported/extra/2004.02.04/p0c-locallock-dcache.patch

This version retains original spin-lock interface (i.e., no additional
"queue link" pointer is passed to the locking function). As a result,
lock data structure contains an array of NR_CPU counters, so it's only
suitable for global statically allocated locks.

 > that are commonly associated with MS's stuff. And as a result the 
 > contended case would be optimized some more via local-spin algorithms. 
 > (which is not a key thing for us, but which would be nice to have 
 > nevertheless)
 > 
 > 	Ingo

Nikita.

-
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/