linux-kernel - Re: [RFC][PATCH 3/4] change mnt

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: <1199992249.25690.24.camel@localhost>
Date:	Thu, 10 Jan 2008 11:10:49 -0800
From:	Dave Hansen <haveblue@...ibm.com>
To:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc:	miklos@...redi.hu, hch@...radead.org, serue@...ibm.com
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 3/4] change mnt_writers[] spinlock to mutex

Missed the description on that one.  Here it is:

We're shortly going to need to be able to block new
mnt_writers for long periods of time during a
superblock remount operation.  Since this operation
can sleep, we can not use a spinlock.  We opt for
a mutex instead.

This are very, very rarely contented, mostly because
they are per-cpu.  So, this should be very close to
as fast as the spinlocks just with the added benefit
that we can sleep while holding them.

We also need to change the get_cpu_var() to use
__get_cpu_var() so that we don't disable preemption.
Otherwise, we'll be in_atomic() when we try to lock
the (sleepable) mutex.  We only use the per-cpu data
for cache benefits and its per-cpuness is not part
of locking logic, so this is OK.
_
-- Dave

--
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/