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  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:	Tue, 11 Mar 2014 11:45:03 +0100
From:	Ingo Molnar <>
To:	Peter Zijlstra <>
Cc:	Waiman Long <>,,,,,,,,,,,,
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 0/7] locking: qspinlock

* Peter Zijlstra <> wrote:

> Hi Waiman,
> I promised you this series a number of days ago; sorry for the delay 
> I've been somewhat unwell :/
> That said, these few patches start with a (hopefully) simple and 
> correct form of the queue spinlock, and then gradually build upon 
> it, explaining each optimization as we go.
> Having these optimizations as separate patches helps twofold; 
> firstly it makes one aware of which exact optimizations were done, 
> and secondly it allows one to proove or disprove any one step; 
> seeing how they should be mostly identity transforms.
> The resulting code is near to what you posted I think; however it 
> has one atomic op less in the pending wait-acquire case for NR_CPUS 
> != huge. It also doesn't do lock stealing; its still perfectly fair 
> afaict.
> Have I missed any tricks from your code?

Waiman, you indicated in the other thread that these look good to you, 
right? If so then I can queue them up so that they form a base for 
further work.

It would be nice to have per patch performance measurements though ... 
this split-up structure really enables that rather nicely.


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