linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/2] enable irqs when waiting for rwlocks

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: <48FF6389.9050408@hp.com>
Date:	Wed, 22 Oct 2008 10:31:53 -0700
From:	Rick Jones <rick.jones2@...com>
To:	Petr Tesarik <ptesarik@...e.cz>
CC:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-ia64@...r.kernel.org,
	tee@....com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] enable irqs when waiting for rwlocks

Petr Tesarik wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> SGI has observed that on large systems, interrupts are not serviced for
> a long period of time when waiting for a rwlock. The following patch
> series re-enables irqs while waiting for the lock, resembling the code
> which is already there for spinlocks.

Perhaps I'm just out in left field, but that (and the similar behaviour 
for obtaining a spinlock?) feels like treating a symptom rather than a 
root cause where the root cause would appear to be long lock hold 
times/contention?

rick jones
--
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/