linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/4, v2] x86: enlightenment for ticket spin locks

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: <4C2C6680020000780000901E@vpn.id2.novell.com>
Date:	Thu, 01 Jul 2010 08:57:20 +0100
From:	"Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@...ell.com>
To:	"Stefano Stabellini" <stefano.stabellini@...citrix.com>,
	"Jeremy Fitzhardinge" <jeremy@...p.org>
Cc:	"mingo@...e.hu" <mingo@...e.hu>,
	"tglx@...utronix.de" <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	"Ky Srinivasan" <KSrinivasan@...ell.com>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"hpa@...or.com" <hpa@...or.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/4, v2] x86: enlightenment for ticket spin locks -
	 Xen  implementation

>>> On 30.06.10 at 17:57, Stefano Stabellini <stefano.stabellini@...citrix.com>
wrote:
> On Wed, 30 Jun 2010, Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
>> On 06/29/2010 04:32 PM, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> > Use the (alternative instructions based) callout hooks to the ticket
>> > spinlock code to enlighten ticket locks when running fully virtualized
>> > on Xen. Ultimately, this code might also be a candidate to be used
>> > when running para-virtualized.
>> >
>> 
>> I'm not sure what the gain is by making this independent of all the rest
>> of the Xen support in the kernel.  Stefano is working on a series
>> (posted a few times now) to add more paravirtual features for Xen HVM
>> guests, and this work is conceptually very similar.
> 
> My series has been stable since a while now and contains all the basic
> PV on HVM mechanisms you need, including parsing the cpuid and mapping
> the shared info page.
> 
> Could you please rebase on my series (or at least the first two
> patches), so that we don't conflict with each other?

I really don't want to make those patches depend on no upstream
stuff (as I want it accepted upstream), and I'm not sure when your
patch series is expected to be upstream. If that's going to be soon,
I'd just re-base after it happened.

Jan

--
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/