linux-kernel - Re: [RESEND PATCH 0/11] kernel:lockdep:replace DFS with BFS

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <1247476574.7529.55.camel@twins>
Date:	Mon, 13 Jul 2009 11:16:14 +0200
From:	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
To:	tom.leiming@...il.com
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
	mingo@...e.hu
Subject: Re: [RESEND PATCH 0/11] kernel:lockdep:replace DFS with BFS

On Sun, 2009-06-28 at 23:04 +0800, tom.leiming@...il.com wrote:
> Hi,Peter
> 
> Currently lockdep uses recursion DFS(depth-first search) algorithm to
> search target in checking lock circle(check_noncircular()),irq-safe
> -> irq-unsafe(check_irq_usage()) and irq inversion when adding a new
> lock dependency. This patches replace the current DFS with BFS, based on
> the following consideration:
> 
>     1,no loss of efficiency, no matter DFS or BFS, the running time
>     are O(V+E) (V is vertex count, and E is edge count of one
>     graph);

I'd still like to get some feedback on the loss of that generation count
optimization done by DaveM, I haven't had time to analyze the
ramifications of that.

--
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/