linux-kernel - Re: [GIT PULL] slab fixes for 3.2-rc4

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: <alpine.DEB.2.00.1112210916400.9601@router.home>
Date:	Wed, 21 Dec 2011 09:20:29 -0600 (CST)
From:	Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>
To:	Pekka Enberg <penberg@...nel.org>
cc:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org,
	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] slab fixes for 3.2-rc4

On Wed, 21 Dec 2011, Pekka Enberg wrote:

> I still don't understand why we'd want separate preempt safe and
> irqsafe variants. It should be enough to have only unsafe and safe
> variants where the latter would always do the right thing.

The effort to make something irqsafe is higher than making it preempt
safe. If that difference is not important then we could just have safe and
unsafe variants. Traditionally counter operations were only preempt safe
though. So making those irqsafe would increse the overhead.




--
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/