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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0710181817380.4194@schroedinger.engr.sgi.com> Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2007 18:21:00 -0700 (PDT) From: Christoph Lameter <clameter@....com> To: Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@...oo.com.au> cc: Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, akpm@...ux-foundation.org, linux-mm@...ck.org Subject: Re: SLUB: Avoid atomic operation for slab_unlock On Fri, 19 Oct 2007, Nick Piggin wrote: > Ah, thanks, but can we just use my earlier patch that does the > proper __bit_spin_unlock which is provided by > bit_spin_lock-use-lock-bitops.patch Ok. > This primitive should have a better chance at being correct, and > also potentially be more optimised for each architecture (it > only has to provide release consistency). Yes that is what I attempted to do with the write barrier. To my knowledge there are no reads that could bleed out and I wanted to avoid a full fence instruction there. > I have attached the patch here just for reference, but actually > I am submitting it properly as part of a patch series today, now > that the base bit lock patches have been sent upstream. Good. Andrew: Drop my patch when this goes in. - 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