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  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]
Date:	Fri, 2 Apr 2010 12:43:00 -0700 (PDT)
From:	Linus Torvalds <>
To:	Jason Wessel <>
cc:	Will Deacon <>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <>,,,
	Russell King - ARM Linux <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/5] kgdb: Use atomic operators which use barriers

On Fri, 2 Apr 2010, Jason Wessel wrote:
> Russell had this thread: 

Russell is wrong.

Yes, originally it was about P4's overheating. But let me repeat: the fact 
is, this _is_ valid kernel code:

	kernel/sched.c-		while (task_is_waking(p))
	kernel/sched.c:			cpu_relax();

(where that "task_is_waking()" is simply doing two regular reads, and 
expects another CPU to be changing them).

This has _nothing_ to do with memory barriers, or with overheating. 

The fact that maybe some ARM6 cache coherency implementation is pure and 
utter sh*t and never sees the changes without the same instruction that 
happens to be a memory barrier on that architecture does not make that 
cpu_relax() any more about memory barriers.

Similarly, the fact that P4's wanted cpu_relax() in order to not overheat 
and cause slowdowns has _nothing_ to do with anything. 

All that matters is that the above kind of while loop must work. The 
architecture needs to do whatever it needs to do to make it work. End of 
discussion. If on ARM6 that means "smp_mb()", then that's an ARM6 
implementation issue.

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

Powered by blists - more mailing lists