linux-kernel - Re: spinlocks -- why are releases inlined and acquires are not?

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: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0804011436150.5541@jikos.suse.cz>
Date:	Tue, 1 Apr 2008 14:40:49 +0200 (CEST)
From:	Jiri Kosina <jkosina@...e.cz>
To:	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
cc:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: spinlocks -- why are releases inlined and acquires are not?

On Tue, 1 Apr 2008, Andi Kleen wrote:

> At some point -- but that was before queued locks -- I noticed that for 
> i386 spin unlocks the call sequence for the sub function is actually 
> larger in code than the actual spin unlock operation and for x86-64 it 
> was about the same. 

spin unlocks seem to be properly inlined anyway, so that should be fine. 
My concern here is the non-inlining of spin locks, for which I don't think 
your argument above is also valid, right?

Thanks,

-- 
Jiri Kosina
--
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/