linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH -v7][RFC]: mutex: implement adaptive spinning

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: <alpine.LFD.2.00.0901091251380.6528@localhost.localdomain>
Date:	Fri, 9 Jan 2009 12:56:36 -0800 (PST)
From:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
cc:	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
	Chris Mason <chris.mason@...cle.com>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
	paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, Gregory Haskins <ghaskins@...ell.com>,
	Matthew Wilcox <matthew@....cx>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
	linux-btrfs <linux-btrfs@...r.kernel.org>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Nick Piggin <npiggin@...e.de>,
	Peter Morreale <pmorreale@...ell.com>,
	Sven Dietrich <SDietrich@...ell.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH -v7][RFC]: mutex: implement adaptive spinning



On Fri, 9 Jan 2009, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> 
> So, should we not remove CONFIG_OPTIMIZE_INLINING, then the correct one 
> would be to mark it __always_inline [__asm_inline is senseless there], or 
> the second patch below that changes the bit parameter to unsigned int.

Well, I certainly don't want to _remove_ the "inline" like your patch did. 
Other gcc versions will care. But I committed the pure "change to 
unsigned" part.

But we should fix the cmpxchg (and perhaps plain xchg too), shouldn't we?

That your gcc version gets it right doesn't change the fact that Chris' 
gcc version didn't, and out-of-lined it all. So we'll need some 
__always_inlines there too..

And no, I don't think it makes any sense to call them "__asm_inline". Even 
when there are asms hidden in between the C statements, what's the 
difference between "always" and "asm"? None, really.

		Linus
--
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/