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
| ||
|
Date: Wed, 8 Feb 2012 08:56:11 -0800 From: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org> To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> Cc: Shaohua Li <shaohua.li@...el.com>, Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>, Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@...hat.com>, lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Knut Petersen <Knut_Petersen@...nline.de>, mroos@...ux.ee Subject: Re: [PATCH] block: strip out locking optimization in put_io_context() On Wed, Feb 08, 2012 at 08:49:20AM -0800, Tejun Heo wrote: > I'm still a bit lost on where the regression is coming from and > *suspecting* that queue_lock contention is making the reverse locking > behave much worse than expected, so I mostly wanted to take that out > and see what happens. IOW, we can achieve about the same thing by adding another lock in request_queue. The goal is using an inner lock for ioc clearing so that queue_lock doesn't have to be grabbed inside ioc lock. Thanks. -- tejun -- 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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists