linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH 1/6] kernel: implement queue spinlock API

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, 07 Feb 2013 16:03:54 -0800
From:	Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
To:	Michel Lespinasse <walken@...gle.com>
Cc:	paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
	David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
	"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
	Manfred Spraul <manfred@...orfullife.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, john.stultz@...aro.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 1/6] kernel: implement queue spinlock API

On Thu, 2013-02-07 at 15:58 -0800, Michel Lespinasse wrote:

> No, I think that's doable. The trick would be that once a thread
> acquires the lock, the only remaining use of the node is to receive
> the 'next' pointer if/when another thread starts contending for the
> lock. So if the lock state would need to distinguish between a lock
> that is currently locked but not contended (the next value would then
> be NULL), and a lock that is currently locked and contended (the
> lock->next value is the node that goes after the current lock owner)
> 

It adds yet another memory write to store the node pointer in the
lock...

I suspect it's going to increase false sharing.


--
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/