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  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:	Thu, 15 Mar 2012 18:55:18 +0100 (CET)
From:	Thomas Gleixner <>
To:	Al Viro <>
cc:	LKML <>,
	Linus Torvalds <>,
	Ingo Molnar <>,
	Peter Zijlstra <>,
	Nick Piggin <>
Subject: Re: [patch 0/5] seqlock consolidation

On Thu, 15 Mar 2012, Al Viro wrote:

> 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?

The problem is the reader side. If the reader preempts the writer then
the only way to make progress is to take the lock, but therefor I need
to know which lock I should take.



To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

Powered by blists - more mailing lists