linux-kernel - Re: [Patch V3 0/3] 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]

Date:	Wed, 03 Dec 2008 13:25:17 +0100
From:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:	Robin Holt <holt@....com>
Cc:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-ia64@...r.kernel.org,
	ptesarik@...e.cz, tee@....com, mingo@...e.hu,
	linux-arch@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [Patch V3 0/3] Enable irqs when waiting for rwlocks

On Wed, 2008-12-03 at 05:37 -0600, Robin Holt wrote:
> > It's a bit regrettable to have different architectures behaving in
> > different ways.  It would be interesting to toss an x86_64
> > implementation into the grinder, see if it causes any problems, see if
> > it produces any tangible benefits.  Then other architectures might
> > follow.  Or not, depending on the results ;)
> 
> I personally expect SGI to work on this for x86_64 in the future.
> Once we actually start testing systems with 128 and above cpus, I
> would expect to see these performance issues needing to be addressed.
> Until then, it is just a theoretical.

Personally I consider this a ugly hack and would love to see people
solve the actual problem and move away from rwlock_t, its utter rubbish.
--
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/