linux-kernel - why are we reduce spin-lock and replace it with lock-free?

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-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <76391b770705100723w24c93b99m48180a759d2116c7@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Thu, 10 May 2007 22:23:32 +0800
From:	"liang yuanen" <linux.kernel.liang@...il.com>
To:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: why are we reduce spin-lock and replace it with lock-free?

Three are many many spin-lock in the kernel code, and in multi-core
conditions, it push down the kernel performance.why are we reduce
spin-lock and replace it with lock-free?
-
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/