linux-kernel - RE: volatile and atomic_t/spinlock

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: <617E1C2C70743745A92448908E030B2A019DD5B5@scsmsx411.amr.corp.intel.com>
Date:	Tue, 5 Jun 2007 11:38:27 -0700
From:	"Luck, Tony" <tony.luck@...el.com>
To:	"Heiko Carstens" <heiko.carstens@...ibm.com>,
	<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: RE: volatile and atomic_t/spinlock_t

> So is
>
>	while (__raw_spin_is_locked(&v));
>
> supposed to work? Or should that be 
>
>	while (__raw_spin_is_locked(&v))
>		cpu_relax();
>
> as well and all the volatiles can/should go away?

cpu_relax() is a really good idea in every spinloop on
hyper-threaded cores.  It lets the h/w know that we aren't
doing anything useful here, so resources and power can be
diverted to other threads sharing the core.

Avoiding the need for volatile or other compiler optimizer
defeating tricks is a side benefit.

-Tony
-
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/