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, 03 Jan 2013 09:05:53 +0000
From:	"Jan Beulich" <>
To:	"Rik van Riel" <>
Cc:	<>, <>,
	<>, <>, <>,
	<>, <>, <>,
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 3/3 -v2] x86,smp: auto tune spinlock backoff
 delay factor

>>> On 27.12.12 at 20:09, Rik van Riel <> wrote:
> On 12/27/2012 01:41 PM, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>>> Rik van Riel <> 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?

I would suppose that this just snoops the bus for writes, but the
amount of bus traffic involved in this isn't explicitly documented.

One downside of course is that unless a spin lock is made occupy
exactly a cache line, false wakeups are possible.


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