linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] increase PREEMPT_BITS to 12 to avoid overflow when starting KVM

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: <1269974089.5258.565.camel@laptop>
Date:	Tue, 30 Mar 2010 20:34:49 +0200
From:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:	Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, avi@...hat.com, aarcange@...hat.com,
	akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
	Kent Overstreet <kent.overstreet@...il.com>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, tglx <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] increase PREEMPT_BITS to 12 to avoid overflow when
 starting KVM

On Tue, 2010-03-30 at 14:05 -0400, Rik van Riel wrote:
> > Also, you'll need to convince mingo and tglx too.. taking that many
> > spinlocks is utter suckage..
> 
> No argument there.  I can't think of an alternative to mm_take_all_locks
> though.  Andrea? 

Well there's altneratives enough, back when this got introduces quite a
few got mentioned too, but they all make the !mm_take_all_locks() lock
side slower so Andrea didn't like them.

I think one of them got mentioned in yesterday's thread as well.

Another alternative is making all those spinlocks mutexes, that will get
rid of that massive !preempt section too.

--
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/