linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH RFC v2 1/2] qspinlock: Introducing a 4-byte queue spinlock implementation

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: <20130828081937.GH10002@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date:	Wed, 28 Aug 2013 10:19:37 +0200
From:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc:	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
	Alexander Fyodorov <halcy@...dex.ru>,
	Waiman Long <waiman.long@...com>,
	linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"Chandramouleeswaran, Aswin" <aswin@...com>,
	"Norton, Scott J" <scott.norton@...com>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC v2 1/2] qspinlock: Introducing a 4-byte queue
 spinlock implementation

On Tue, Aug 27, 2013 at 06:21:29PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 27, 2013 at 03:53:10PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Tue, Aug 27, 2013 at 09:14:36AM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > 
> > > I just had this conversation with Paul McKenney. Should there be a
> > > smp_mb_after_spin_unlock()?
> > 
> > Depends on the benefits I suppose :-) Oleg and Linus did recently add
> > smp_mb__before_spinlock();
> > 
> > > Although we blew it off as adding too many extensions to smp_mb(). But
> > > it may be better than reimplementing something as complex as a lock.
> > 
> > Locks should be as light weight as possible and never implement anything
> > heavier than the ACQUISITION / RELEASE barriers if at all possible. We
> > should certainly not re-implement spinlocks just to get full barriers
> > out of them, that's crazy.
> 
> An unlock followed by a lock needs to act like a full barrier, but there
> is no requirement that a lock or unlock taken separately act like a
> full barrier.

But that is already a property of the acquisition/release barrier.
--
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/