linux-kernel - Re: [mm][RFC][PATCH 0/11] mm accessor updates.

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: <20091217144551.GA6819@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date:	Thu, 17 Dec 2009 06:45:51 -0800
From:	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
Cc:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>, cl@...ux-foundation.org,
	"akpm@...ux-foundation.org" <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	"mingo@...e.hu" <mingo@...e.hu>, minchan.kim@...il.com
Subject: Re: [mm][RFC][PATCH 0/11] mm accessor updates.

On Thu, Dec 17, 2009 at 09:54:30AM +0100, Andi Kleen wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 17, 2009 at 09:45:34AM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Thu, 2009-12-17 at 09:40 +0100, Andi Kleen wrote:
> > > On Wed, Dec 16, 2009 at 11:57:04PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > > On Wed, 2009-12-16 at 19:31 +0900, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > > The problem of range locking is more than mmap_sem, anyway. I don't think
> > > > > it's possible easily.
> > > > 
> > > > We already have a natural range lock in the form of the split pte lock.
> > > > 
> > > > If we make the vma lookup speculative using RCU, we can use the pte lock
> > > 
> > > One problem is here that mmap_sem currently contains sleeps
> > > and RCU doesn't work for blocking operations until a custom
> > > quiescent period is defined.
> > 
> > Right, so one thing we could do is always have preemptible rcu present
> > in another RCU flavour, like
> > 
> > rcu_read_lock_sleep()
> > rcu_read_unlock_sleep()
> > call_rcu_sleep()
> > 
> > or whatever name that would be, and have PREEMPT_RCU=y only flip the
> > regular rcu implementation between the sched/sleep one.
> 
> That could work yes.

OK, I have to ask...

Why not just use the already-existing SRCU in this case?

							Thanx, Paul
--
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/