linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH -mm 1/2] irq_work, Use llist in irq

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: <4E602EC8.9010306@intel.com>
Date:	Fri, 02 Sep 2011 09:18:00 +0800
From:	Huang Ying <ying.huang@...el.com>
To:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
CC:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH -mm 1/2] irq_work, Use llist in irq_work

On 09/01/2011 06:00 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Thu, 2011-09-01 at 16:44 +0800, Huang Ying wrote:
> 
>> Because llist is in library, it may be used in highly contended case and
>> light/un-contended loads.  So maybe code as above is best choice for llist.
> 
> Well the thing is, if you're heavily contended you should probably be
> doing something else..

So which solution is preferable?

1) no cpu_relax
2) cpu_relax after first cmpxchg

Personally, I prefer 2).  It should have acceptable overhead in
ligh/un-contended loads.  Do you agree.

Best Regards,
Huang Ying
--
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/