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: <20070324134128.7882f905.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Date:	Sat, 24 Mar 2007 13:41:28 -0800
From:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	Nick Piggin <npiggin@...e.de>
Cc:	mingo@...e.hu, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kiran@...lex86.org
Subject: Re: [rfc][patch] queued spinlocks (i386)

> On Fri, 23 Mar 2007 11:32:44 +0100 Nick Piggin <npiggin@...e.de> wrote:
>
> I'm not as concerned about the contended performance of spinlocks
>

The contended case matters.  Back in 2.5.something I screwed up the debug
version of one of the locks (rwlock, iirc) - it was simply missing a
cpu_relax(), and some people's benchmarks halved.

> This was just something I had in mind when the hardware lock
> starvation issue came up

It looks like a good way to address the lru_lock starvation/capture
problem.  But I think I'd be more comfortable if we were to introduce it as
a new lock type, rather than as a reimplementation of the existing
spin_lock().   Initially, at least.
-
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/