linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 0/3] qspinlock: Introducing a 4-byte queue spinlock

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: <530655A3.4050105@hp.com>
Date:	Thu, 20 Feb 2014 14:21:07 -0500
From:	Waiman Long <waiman.long@...com>
To:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
CC:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
	"linux-arch@...r.kernel.org" <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>,
	the arch/x86 maintainers <x86@...nel.org>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Michel Lespinasse <walken@...gle.com>,
	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
	Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Raghavendra K T <raghavendra.kt@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	George Spelvin <linux@...izon.com>,
	Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com>,
	Daniel J Blueman <daniel@...ascale.com>,
	Alexander Fyodorov <halcy@...dex.ru>,
	Aswin Chandramouleeswaran <aswin@...com>,
	Scott J Norton <scott.norton@...com>,
	Thavatchai Makphaibulchoke <thavatchai.makpahibulchoke@...com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 0/3] qspinlock: Introducing a 4-byte queue spinlock

On 02/20/2014 01:42 PM, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 9:54 AM, Waiman Long<waiman.long@...com>  wrote:
>> I think we could implement 2 versions of _raw_spin_lock.
> Yup. Or rather,  I'd suggest implement just one version of
> arch_spin_lock(), but at the top of it you do something like
>
>     #if CONFIG_PARAVIRT_SPINLOCK
>          if (static_key_false(&unfair_spinlocks)) {
>             .. do paravirt unfair lock version ..
>          }
>     #endif
>
> which should basically generate almost-perfect code:  it's one extra
> no-op for the native case if CONFIG_PARAVIRT_SPINLOCK is on, which
> turns into a branch for the unfair version for paravirtualization.
>
> Or something like that.
>
>                Linus

Yes, this is actually what I meant. The only difference is that I am 
thinking about using a different config variable as PARAVIRT_SPINLOCKS 
actually mean something else.

-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/