linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH -v4 4/5] x86,smp: keep spinlock delay values per hashed spinlock address

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: <5112B8A2.8050800@redhat.com>
Date:	Wed, 06 Feb 2013 15:10:10 -0500
From:	Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>
To:	Michel Lespinasse <walken@...gle.com>
CC:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, aquini@...hat.com,
	eric.dumazet@...il.com, lwoodman@...hat.com, knoel@...hat.com,
	chegu_vinod@...com, raghavendra.kt@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
	mingo@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH -v4 4/5] x86,smp: keep spinlock delay values per hashed
 spinlock address

On 01/27/2013 08:04 AM, Michel Lespinasse wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 11:18 AM, Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com> wrote:
>> +       u32 delay = (ent->hash == hash) ? ent->delay : MIN_SPINLOCK_DELAY;
>
> I still don't like the reseting of delay to MIN_SPINLOCK_DELAY when
> there is a hash collision.

I've been spending some time looking at this, because I am
not a fan either.

However, it seems to work and I failed to come up with
anything better. Therefore, I have left it as is in the
-v5 patch series.
--
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/