linux-kernel - Re: [ANNOUNCE] 3.2.9-rt17

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: <1331236900.25686.462.camel@gandalf.stny.rr.com>
Date:	Thu, 08 Mar 2012 15:01:40 -0500
From:	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	linux-rt-users <linux-rt-users@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [ANNOUNCE] 3.2.9-rt17

On Thu, 2012-03-08 at 20:48 +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Thu, 2012-03-08 at 13:42 -0500, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > cpu_chill_on_lock().
> 
> I think what you were hinting at is:
> 
>   spin_lock(&lock);
>   spin_unlock(&lock);

Exactly.

> 
> which is the rt_mutex implementation of spin_unlock_wait(). No new
> function needed for that.

Yes but...
> 
> Trouble is that you cannot use inode->i_lock as explained..

Right!


What I was hinting at was that the spin_lock() can boost, but it could
also fail if there was a deadlock detected, and it wouldn't cause the
system to hang.

-- Steve


--
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/