linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH 3/3 -v2] x86,smp: auto tune spinlock backoff delay factor

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:	Thu, 27 Dec 2012 14:09:21 -0500
From:	Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>
To:	Jan Beulich <jbeulich@...e.com>
CC:	eric.dumazet@...il.com, rostedt@...dmis.org, therbert@...gle.com,
	walken@...gle.com, jeremy@...p.org, tglx@...utronix.de,
	aquini@...hat.com, lwoodman@...hat.com,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 3/3 -v2] x86,smp: auto tune spinlock backoff delay
 factor

On 12/27/2012 01:41 PM, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>> Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com> 12/27/12 4:01 PM >>>
>> On 12/27/2012 09:27 AM, Eric Dumazet wrote:
>>> So the hash sounds good to me, because the hash key could mix both lock
>>> address and caller IP ( __builtin_return_address(1) in
>>> ticket_spin_lock_wait())
>>
>> The lock acquisition time depends on the holder of the lock,
>> and what the CPUs ahead of us in line will do with the lock,
>> not on the caller IP of the spinner.
>
> The lock holder could supply its __builtin_return_address(0) for use
> in eventual hashing.
>
> Also, with all of this - did you evaluate the alternative of using
> monitor/mwait instead?

How much bus traffic do monitor/mwait cause behind the scenes?

-- 
All rights reversed
--
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/