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  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:	Mon, 22 Apr 2013 11:29:48 +0530
From:	Raghavendra K T <>
To:	Jiannan Ouyang <>
CC:	Rik van Riel <>,
	LKML <>,
	Peter Zijlstra <>,
	Avi Kivity <>,
	Gleb Natapov <>, Ingo Molnar <>,
	Marcelo Tosatti <>,
	Srikar <>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <>,
	"Nikunj A. Dadhania" <>,
	KVM <>, Thomas Gleixner <>,
	Chegu Vinod <>,
	"Andrew M. Theurer" <>,
	Srivatsa Vaddagiri <>,
	Andrew Jones <>,
	Karen Noel <>
Subject: Re: Preemptable Ticket Spinlock

On 04/22/2013 04:37 AM, Jiannan Ouyang wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 21, 2013 at 5:12 PM, Rik van Riel <> wrote:
>> Your algorithm is very clever, and very promising.
>> However, it does increase the size of the struct spinlock, and adds
>> an additional atomic operation to spin_unlock, neither of which I
>> suspect are necessary.
>> If we always incremented the ticket number by 2 (instead of 1), then
>> we could use the lower bit of the ticket number as the spinlock.
>> If we do NOT run virtualized, we simply increment the ticket by 2
>> in spin_unlock, and the code can remain otherwise the same.
>> If we do run virtualized, we take that spinlock after acquiring
>> the ticket (or timing out), just like in your code. In the
>> virtualized spin_unlock, we can then release the spinlock and
>> increment the ticket in one operation: by simply increasing the
>> ticket by 1.
>> In other words, we should be able to keep the overhead of this
>> to an absolute minimum, and keep spin_unlock to be always the
>> same cost it is today.
>> --
>> All rights reversed
> Hi Rik,
> Thanks for your feedback.
> Yes I agree with you
> - increase the size of struct spinlock is unnecessary
> - your idea of utilize the lower bit and save one atomic operation
> from unlock is cool!

Yes, +1. it is indeed a cool idea. Thanks to Jeremy.. and as Rik already 
mentioned it would also prevent the side effects of increasing
lock size. (It reminds my thought of encoding vcpuid in lock for pv 

> I can come up with a updated patch soon.
> --Jiannan

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