| 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
| ||
|
Message-Id: <1402511843-4721-2-git-send-email-jason.low2@hp.com> Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2014 11:37:20 -0700 From: Jason Low <jason.low2@...com> To: mingo@...nel.org, peterz@...radead.org, tglx@...utronix.de, akpm@...ux-foundation.org Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com, paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, rostedt@...dmis.org, davidlohr@...com, Waiman.Long@...com, scott.norton@...com, aswin@...com, jason.low2@...com Subject: [PATCH v2 1/4] mutex: Correct documentation on mutex optimistic spinning The mutex optimistic spinning documentation states that we spin for acquisition when we find that there are no pending waiters. However, in actuality, whether or not there are waiters for the mutex doesn't determine if we will spin for it. This patch removes that statement and also adds a comment which mentions that we spin for the mutex while we don't need to reschedule. Acked-by: Davidlohr Bueso <davidlohr@...com> Signed-off-by: Jason Low <jason.low2@...com> --- kernel/locking/mutex.c | 10 ++++------ 1 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-) diff --git a/kernel/locking/mutex.c b/kernel/locking/mutex.c index bc73d33..dd26bf6 100644 --- a/kernel/locking/mutex.c +++ b/kernel/locking/mutex.c @@ -388,12 +388,10 @@ __mutex_lock_common(struct mutex *lock, long state, unsigned int subclass, /* * Optimistic spinning. * - * We try to spin for acquisition when we find that there are no - * pending waiters and the lock owner is currently running on a - * (different) CPU. - * - * The rationale is that if the lock owner is running, it is likely to - * release the lock soon. + * We try to spin for acquisition when we find that the lock owner + * is currently running on a (different) CPU and while we don't + * need to reschedule. The rationale is that if the lock owner is + * running, it is likely to release the lock soon. * * Since this needs the lock owner, and this mutex implementation * doesn't track the owner atomically in the lock field, we need to -- 1.7.1 -- 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