linux-kernel - Re: [patch 0/5] seqlock consolidation

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: <20120315174305.GD8943@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
Date:	Thu, 15 Mar 2012 17:43:06 +0000
From:	Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>
To:	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Cc:	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...l.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Nick Piggin <npiggin@...nel.dk>
Subject: Re: [patch 0/5] seqlock consolidation

On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 01:28:03PM +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote:

> The only way out is to lock d->d_lock which is contended, so the
> reader side boosts the writer and waits for the lock to be
> released. Though with the open coded seqlock we have no idea which
> lock we need to take.
> 
> Any better ideas ?

So basically you want RT stuff to know that several areas in fs/dcache.c
(from write_seqcount_begin() to write_seqcount_end()) are protected by
(already held by that point) ->d_lock of corresponding dentries?

If that's it, I suggest to look for a solution that would express just that...
Or do you want something on the reader side as well?
--
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/