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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20130208161723.GA2666@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date:	Fri, 8 Feb 2013 08:17:32 -0800
From:	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:	Michel Lespinasse <walken@...gle.com>
Cc:	Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.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, Feb 07, 2013 at 09:11:14PM -0800, Michel Lespinasse wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 9:03 PM, Paul E. McKenney
> <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> > Right...  For spinlocks that -don't- disable irqs, you need to deal with
> > the possibility that a CPU gets interrupted while spinning, and the
> > interrupt handler also tries to acquire a queued lock.  One way to deal
> > with this is to have a node per CPUxirq.  Of course, if interrupts
> > handlers always disable irqs when acquiring a spinlock, then you only
> > need CPUx2.
> 
> The simple solution would be to do like I proposed in my faster queue
> spinlock proposal, have one function for process context lock
> acquisitions, another for bh-disabled acquisitions, and just say that
> hardirqs can't use the queue spinlocks (I don't expect we have any
> locks taken from hardirq context where contention might be an issue ?)

Makes sense!  The spinlocks that disable hardirqs should get extra
contention-reduction attention, after which the main benefit for
queued spinlocks is process-level spinlocks.

							Thanx, Paul

--
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/