linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 8/5] llist: Remove cpu

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: <1315841060.26517.67.camel@twins>
Date:	Mon, 12 Sep 2011 17:24:20 +0200
From:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:	Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>
Cc:	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
	Huang Ying <ying.huang@...el.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 8/5] llist: Remove cpu_relax() usage in cmpxchg loops

On Mon, 2011-09-12 at 17:09 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:

> Furthermore, I would argue we should avoid growing them, significantly
> contended atomic ops are bad, use a different scheme.

To clarify, plain cmpxchg loops are unfair and unbounded in completion
time, and we should therefore avoid any sort of medium/high contention.
If you get into that situation you're doing it wrong.


--
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/