linux-kernel - Re: queued spinlock code and results

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: <20070711045111.GA1563@wotan.suse.de>
Date:	Wed, 11 Jul 2007 06:51:12 +0200
From:	Nick Piggin <npiggin@...e.de>
To:	Christoph Lameter <clameter@....com>
Cc:	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: queued spinlock code and results

On Tue, Jul 10, 2007 at 07:26:10PM -0700, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> On Wed, 11 Jul 2007, Nick Piggin wrote:
> 
> > BTW. some advanced congestion algorithms like HBO may find these ticket
> > locks useful because you can see immediately how many CPUs are contending
> > the lock, and spinners know how many CPUs are in front of them. That info
> > could be fed into the spin backoff scheme.
> 
> That would mean having to keep a lot of status information for a spinlock. 
> Gets pretty complicated.
 
Did you look at the implementation? It takes 2 bytes on x86 and is almost
the same code size and speed as the existing locks.


> The RT tree already converts spinlocks to sleeping locks? If we want to be 
> that complicated then maybe going with one sophisticated lock type for all 
> would be the solution.

I don't want to convert spinlocks to sleeping locks though.
-
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/