linux-kernel - Re: Spinlocks: Factor our GENERIC_LOCKBREAK in order to avoid spin with irqs disable

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:	Thu, 26 Jun 2008 10:02:05 -0700 (PDT)
From:	Christoph Lameter <clameter@....com>
To:	Petr Tesarik <ptesarik@...e.cz>
cc:	Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>,
	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@...oo.com.au>
Subject: Re: Spinlocks: Factor our GENERIC_LOCKBREAK in order to avoid spin
 with irqs disable

On Thu, 26 Jun 2008, Petr Tesarik wrote:

> We should probably re-think the whole locking scheme, because spinlocks
> were designed to be held for a short period of time. This was a fair
> assumption when they were introduced, but obviously it is now false in
> many cases (such as virtualization).

And NUMA.

> Ticket-based spinlocks have actually already changed the original
> design, so why not implement a generic "lock scheduler" on top of
> spinlock_t and rwlock_t?

How about making the semaphore / mutex code as fast as spinlocks and just 
use that?

--
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/