linux-kernel - Re: What if a TLB flush needed to sleep?

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]

Date:	Wed, 26 Mar 2008 18:19:26 -0700 (PDT)
From:	Christoph Lameter <clameter@....com>
To:	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
cc:	"Luck, Tony" <tony.luck@...el.com>, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: What if a TLB flush needed to sleep?

On Wed, 26 Mar 2008, Thomas Gleixner wrote:

> Please use a mutex, not a semaphore. semaphores should only be used
> when you need a counting sempahore.

Seems that mutexes are mainly useful for 2 processor systems since they 
do not allow concurrent read sections. We want multiple processors able 
to reclaim pages within the same vma or file concurrently. This means 
processors need to be able to concurrently walk potentially long lists of 
vmas.
--
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/