linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/4] Avoid taking waitqueue lock in dmapool

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: <20070926.141008.25425420.davem@davemloft.net>
Date:	Wed, 26 Sep 2007 14:10:08 -0700 (PDT)
From:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To:	willy@...ux.intel.com
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] Avoid taking waitqueue lock in dmapool

From: Matthew Wilcox <willy@...ux.intel.com>
Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2007 15:01:16 -0400

> With one trivial change (taking the lock slightly earlier on wakeup
> from schedule), all uses of the waitq are under the pool lock, so we
> can use the locked (or __) versions of the wait queue functions, and
> avoid the extra spinlock.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Matthew Wilcox <willy@...ux.intel.com>

This one looks good to me:

Acked-by: David S. Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
-
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/