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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Wed, 6 Jun 2007 00:17:36 +0200
From:	Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@...ibm.com>
To:	"Luck, Tony" <tony.luck@...el.com>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: volatile and atomic_t/spinlock_t

On Tue, Jun 05, 2007 at 11:38:27AM -0700, Luck, Tony wrote:
> > 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.

Currently it is already that it has to be

	while (__raw_spin_is_locked(&v))
		cpu_relax();

Just like in __raw_spin_unlock_wait(). Oh well, I should have
checked more before posting...
-
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/