linux-kernel - Re: 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-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20070510153241.2d5ac2cb@the-village.bc.nu>
Date:	Thu, 10 May 2007 15:32:41 +0100
From:	Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
To:	"liang yuanen" <linux.kernel.liang@...il.com>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: why are we reduce spin-lock and replace it with lock-free?

On Thu, 10 May 2007 22:23:32 +0800
"liang yuanen" <linux.kernel.liang@...il.com> wrote:

> 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?

If you can find algorithms which are lock free, faster than taking the
lock and have bounded resource consumption then you can test them with
the kernel and send patches. 

Alan
-
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/