| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <20080725103601.2dbcd7e8@bull.net> Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2008 10:36:01 +0200 From: Sebastien Dugue <sebastien.dugue@...l.net> To: benh@...nel.crashing.org Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@...oo.com.au>, Linux-rt <linux-rt-users@...r.kernel.org>, linux-ppc <linuxppc-dev@...abs.org>, linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>, Michael Ellerman <michael@...erman.id.au>, Tim Chavez <tinytim@...ibm.com>, Jean Pierre Dion <jean-pierre.dion@...l.net>, Gilles Carry <Gilles.Carry@....bull.net> Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2][RT] powerpc - Make the irq reverse mapping radix tree lockless On Fri, 25 Jul 2008 18:27:20 +1000 Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org> wrote: > On Fri, 2008-07-25 at 09:49 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > > > > > The only advantage of the concurrent radix tree over this model is that > > it can potentially do multiple modification operations at the same time. > > Yup, we do not need that for the irq revmap... concurrent lookup is all we need. > Shouldn't we care about concurrent insertion and deletion in the tree? I agree that concern might be a bit artificial but in theory that can happen. Sebastien. -- 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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists