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
| ||
|
Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2014 10:14:11 +0200 From: Paul Bolle <pebolle@...cali.nl> To: Waiman Long <Waiman.Long@...com>, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org> Cc: hpa@...or.com, konrad.wilk@...cle.com, torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, davej@...hat.com, jeremy@...p.org, paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, raghavendra.kt@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, tglx@...utronix.de, oleg@...hat.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: [tip:locking/core] x86, locking/rwlocks: Enable qrwlocks on x86 On Fri, 2014-06-06 at 05:20 -0700, tip-bot for Waiman Long wrote: > Make x86 use the fair rwlock_t. > > Implement the custom queue_write_unlock() for best performance. This landed in linux-next yesterday (ie, next-20140610). > Signed-off-by: Waiman Long <Waiman.Long@...com> > [peterz: near complete rewrite] > Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> > Cc: Dave Jones <davej@...hat.com> > Cc: Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org> > Cc: Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@...cle.com> > Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> > Cc: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com> > Cc: Raghavendra K T <raghavendra.kt@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> > Cc: "Paul E.McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> > Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org > Cc: x86@...nel.org > Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/n/tip-r1xuzmdysvuhl3h86n5fbxi7@git.kernel.org > Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org> >[...] > diff --git a/arch/x86/include/asm/qrwlock.h b/arch/x86/include/asm/qrwlock.h > new file mode 100644 > index 0000000..70f46f0 > --- /dev/null > +++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/qrwlock.h > @@ -0,0 +1,17 @@ > +#ifndef _ASM_X86_QRWLOCK_H > +#define _ASM_X86_QRWLOCK_H > + > +#include <asm-generic/qrwlock_types.h> > + > +#if !defined(CONFIG_X86_OOSTORE) && !defined(CONFIG_X86_PPRO_FENCE) X86_OOSTORE was removed in v3.14, see commit 09df7c4c8097 ("x86: Remove CONFIG_X86_OOSTORE"). So the first test can be removed here, as it will always be true. Should I submit the trivial, but probably untested, patch to do that or do you prefer to do that yourself? > +#define queue_write_unlock queue_write_unlock > +static inline void queue_write_unlock(struct qrwlock *lock) > +{ > + barrier(); > + ACCESS_ONCE(*(u8 *)&lock->cnts) = 0; > +} > +#endif > + > +#include <asm-generic/qrwlock.h> > + > +#endif /* _ASM_X86_QRWLOCK_H */ Thanks, Paul Bolle -- 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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists