linux-kernel - Re: [RFC, PATCH] state machine based rcu

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: <48B43B2C.20003@colorfullife.com>
Date:	Tue, 26 Aug 2008 19:19:40 +0200
From:	Manfred Spraul <manfred@...orfullife.com>
To:	paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com
CC:	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC, PATCH] state machine based rcu

Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> The big long test is over, so if you can send me a patch against some
> Linus tree, I will see about testing your code.  Assuming someone else
> doesn't jump on the machines first, that is...  :-/
>   
Cool.
Attached is the latest patch I have, it should be stable and perform 
about as good as the current code.
The only known regressions are:
- a lack of a force_quiescent_state() implementation. Shouldn't matter 
since no_hz cpus are bypassed.
- the irq entry of no_hz cpus takes a global spinlock. For some test 
setups, this will probably kill the performance.

Which test do you intend to run?
An oprofile with an opannotate asm file would be nice. Preferably with 
inlined spinlocks - that would immediately show the hot spots.

Do you have an opannotate output from your patch?

--
    Manfred

View attachment "0001-kernel-rcustate.c-state-machine-based-rcu-implement.patch" of type "text/plain" (53517 bytes)