linux-kernel - Re: [patch]block: fix ioc locking warning

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]

Date:	Tue, 7 Feb 2012 14:34:48 -0800
From:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	Shaohua Li <shaohua.li@...el.com>
Cc:	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>, Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@...hat.com>,
	Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>,
	lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Knut Petersen <Knut_Petersen@...nline.de>, mroos@...ux.ee
Subject: Re: [patch]block: fix ioc locking warning

On Mon, Feb 6, 2012 at 9:22 PM, Shaohua Li <shaohua.li@...el.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 2012-02-06 at 16:59 -0800, Tejun Heo wrote:
>> * Test with the this_q != locked_q trylock patch.
> this one slightly reduces the regression. without it, the regression is
> about 17%, with it, the regression is about 12%. Test result is stable.

What happens when you remove the fast-case entirely?

See the other patch by Tejun with the subject "[PATCH] block: strip
out locking optimization in put_io_context()"

               Linus
--
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/