linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v10 08/19] qspinlock: Make a new qnode structure to support virtualization

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: <20140510141417.GF30445@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date:	Sat, 10 May 2014 16:14:17 +0200
From:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:	Waiman Long <waiman.long@...com>
Cc:	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org,
	x86@...nel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
	xen-devel@...ts.xenproject.org, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
	Paolo Bonzini <paolo.bonzini@...il.com>,
	Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@...cle.com>,
	Boris Ostrovsky <boris.ostrovsky@...cle.com>,
	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Raghavendra K T <raghavendra.kt@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	David Vrabel <david.vrabel@...rix.com>,
	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
	Gleb Natapov <gleb@...hat.com>,
	Scott J Norton <scott.norton@...com>,
	Chegu Vinod <chegu_vinod@...com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v10 08/19] qspinlock: Make a new qnode structure to
 support virtualization

On Fri, May 09, 2014 at 09:08:56PM -0400, Waiman Long wrote:
> On 05/08/2014 03:04 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> >On Wed, May 07, 2014 at 11:01:36AM -0400, Waiman Long wrote:
> >>  /*
> >>+ * To have additional features for better virtualization support, it is
> >>+ * necessary to store additional data in the queue node structure. So
> >>+ * a new queue node structure will have to be defined and used here.
> >>+ */
> >>+struct qnode {
> >>+	struct mcs_spinlock mcs;
> >>+};
> >You can ditch this entire patch; its pointless, just add a new
> >DEFINE_PER_CPU for the para-virt muck.
> 
> Yes, I can certainly merge it to the next one in the series. I break it out
> to make each individual patch smaller, more single-purpose and easier to
> review.

No, don't merge it, _drop_ it. Wrapping things in a struct generates a
ton of pointless change.

Put the new data in a new DEFINE_PER_CPU and leave the existing code as
is.

Content of type "application/pgp-signature" skipped