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
| ||
|
Date: Sun, 8 Jul 2007 09:49:58 -0700 (PDT) From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> To: Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org> cc: Nick Piggin <npiggin@...e.de>, Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org> Subject: Re: queued spinlock code and results On Sun, 8 Jul 2007, Andi Kleen wrote: > > Nick Piggin <npiggin@...e.de> writes: > > > I made some tests of the queued spinlock code using userspace test code on > > 64-bit processors. I believe the xadd based code no longer has any theoretical > > memory ordering problems. > > Linus, the background of this is that on 8 socket Opteron systems > the current spinlocks can become very unfair to the point of severe > starvation. These boxes are becomming more common. Yeah, considering the numbers, I don't have any real objections here. I would ask that the code be given to both Intel and AMD engineers to look over, just to verify that the lfence is sufficient (or whether it's even needed), but I think the use of "xaddw" to both increment _and_ load the old value for the non-contention case is an obviously good (and clever) way to handle that one, and even if we'd have to add something heavier than the lfence to the contended case, it looks fine to me. So the only remaining issue is that unfairness is probably really good for some loads (not just for the spinlock itself - it will likely cause much better cache behaviour for stuff _inside_ the lock to stay on the same core), but I don't think we want to optimize for the contended case anyway, so that's more of a "it will be interesting to see" kind of comment. In short: if we can have AMD/Intel engineers look this over for any subtle issues, and they are happy, then I'm happy. Linus - 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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists