linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 4/4] MCS Lock: Make mcs_spinlock.h includable in other files

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: <527A60E3.3000106@hp.com>
Date:	Wed, 06 Nov 2013 10:31:47 -0500
From:	Waiman Long <waiman.long@...com>
To:	Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com>
CC:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
	linux-arch@...r.kernel.org,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>,
	Alex Shi <alex.shi@...aro.org>,
	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
	Michel Lespinasse <walken@...gle.com>,
	Davidlohr Bueso <davidlohr.bueso@...com>,
	Matthew R Wilcox <matthew.r.wilcox@...el.com>,
	Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>,
	Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
	Peter Hurley <peter@...leysoftware.com>,
	"Paul E.McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Raghavendra K T <raghavendra.kt@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	George Spelvin <linux@...izon.com>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
	Aswin Chandramouleeswaran <aswin@...com>,
	Scott J Norton <scott.norton@...com>,
	Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 4/4] MCS Lock: Make mcs_spinlock.h includable in other
 files

On 11/05/2013 02:30 PM, Tim Chen wrote:
> On Tue, 2013-11-05 at 19:57 +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>> On Tue, Nov 05, 2013 at 09:42:39AM -0800, Tim Chen wrote:
>>> + * The _raw_mcs_spin_lock() function should not be called directly. Instead,
>>> + * users should call mcs_spin_lock().
>>>    */
>>> -static noinline
>>> -void mcs_spin_lock(struct mcs_spinlock **lock, struct mcs_spinlock *node)
>>> +static inline
>>> +void _raw_mcs_spin_lock(struct mcs_spinlock **lock, struct mcs_spinlock *node)
>>>   {
>>>   	struct mcs_spinlock *prev;
>>>
>> So why keep it in the header at all?
> I also made the suggestion originally of keeping both lock and unlock in
> mcs_spinlock.c.  Wonder if Waiman decides to keep them in header
> because in-lining the unlock function makes execution a bit faster?
>
> Tim
>

I was following the example of the spinlock code where the lock function 
is not inlined, but the unlock function is. I have no objection to make 
them both as non-inlined functions, if you think that is the right move.

Regards,
Longman
--
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/