linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH -v11][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]

Date:	Wed, 14 Jan 2009 18:18:00 +0100
From:	Nick Piggin <npiggin@...e.de>
To:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Gregory Haskins <ghaskins@...ell.com>,
	Matthew Wilcox <matthew@....cx>,
	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
	Chris Mason <chris.mason@...cle.com>,
	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>,
	Peter Morreale <pmorreale@...ell.com>,
	Sven Dietrich <SDietrich@...ell.com>,
	Dmitry Adamushko <dmitry.adamushko@...il.com>,
	Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH -v11][RFC] mutex: implement adaptive spinning

On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 06:00:36PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> Full series, including changelogs available at:
> 
>  http://programming.kicks-ass.net/kernel-patches/mutex-adaptive-spin/
> 
> and should shortly appear in a git tree near Ingo :-)

Linus is going to take a wholesale conversion of mutexes to adaptive
mutexes? He's gone soft. I put on my asbestos underwear for no reason,
then.

 
> @@ -173,21 +237,21 @@ __mutex_lock_common(struct mutex *lock, 
>  			spin_unlock_mutex(&lock->wait_lock, flags);
>  
>  			debug_mutex_free_waiter(&waiter);
> +			preempt_enable();
>  			return -EINTR;
>  		}
>  		__set_task_state(task, state);
>  
>  		/* didnt get the lock, go to sleep: */
>  		spin_unlock_mutex(&lock->wait_lock, flags);
> -		schedule();
> +		__schedule();

Why does this need to do a preempt-disabled schedule? After we schedule
away, the next task can do arbitrary things or reschedule itself, so if
we have not anticipated such a condition here, then I can't see what
__schedule protects. At least a comment is in order?

Pity to add the call overhead to schedule just for this case. BTW.
__schedule shouldn't need to be asmlinkage?

>  		spin_lock_mutex(&lock->wait_lock, flags);
>  	}
>  
--
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/