linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 08 of 11] anon-vma-rwsem

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: <alpine.LFD.1.10.0805140954280.3019@woody.linux-foundation.org>
Date:	Wed, 14 May 2008 09:56:18 -0700 (PDT)
From:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	Robin Holt <holt@....com>
cc:	Nick Piggin <npiggin@...e.de>,
	Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@...oo.com.au>,
	Andrea Arcangeli <andrea@...ranet.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Christoph Lameter <clameter@....com>,
	Jack Steiner <steiner@....com>,
	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
	kvm-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net,
	Kanoj Sarcar <kanojsarcar@...oo.com>,
	Roland Dreier <rdreier@...co.com>,
	Steve Wise <swise@...ngridcomputing.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Avi Kivity <avi@...ranet.com>,
	linux-mm@...ck.org, general@...ts.openfabrics.org,
	Hugh Dickins <hugh@...itas.com>,
	Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>,
	Anthony Liguori <aliguori@...ibm.com>,
	Chris Wright <chrisw@...hat.com>,
	Marcelo Tosatti <marcelo@...ck.org>,
	Eric Dumazet <dada1@...mosbay.com>,
	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 08 of 11] anon-vma-rwsem



On Wed, 14 May 2008, Robin Holt wrote:
> 
> Would it be acceptable to always put a sleepable stall in even if the 
> code path did not require the pages be unwritable prior to continuing?  
> If we did that, I would be freed from having a pool of invalidate 
> threads ready for XPMEM to use for that work. Maybe there is a better 
> way, but the sleeping requirement we would have on the threads make most 
> options seem unworkable.

I'm not understanding the question. If you can do you management outside 
of the spinlocks, then you can obviously do whatever you want, including 
sleping. It's changing the existing spinlocks to be sleepable that is not 
acceptable, because it's such a performance problem.

		Linus
--
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/