linux-kernel - Re: Active waiting with yield()

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:	Fri, 14 Nov 2008 21:21:02 +0000
From:	Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
To:	Mikulas Patocka <mpatocka@...hat.com>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, mingo@...e.hu, rml@...h9.net,
	Alasdair G Kergon <agk@...hat.com>,
	Milan Broz <mbroz@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: Active waiting with yield()

> If I have a race condition that gets triggered just for one user in the 
> world when repeatedly loading & unloading a driver for an hour, and I use 
> yield() to solve it, what's wrong with it? A wait queue increases cache 
> footprint for every user. (even if I use preallocated hashed wait queue, 
> it still eats a cacheline to access it and find out that it's empty)

Reread what I wrote.

You don't need to use a hashed queue, you don't need to even reference
the queue in the normal case. You cost is one variable, which you can
probably sensibly locate, and a predicted jump.

For that you get proper sleeping behaviour, CPU used by other tasks or
guests and you don't hang on hard real time tasks.
--
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/