linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH -tip/master 3/7] locking/mcs: Remove obsolete comment

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: <20140728165733.GU19379@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date:	Mon, 28 Jul 2014 18:57:33 +0200
From:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:	Davidlohr Bueso <davidlohr@...com>
Cc:	Jason Low <jason.low2@...com>, mingo@...nel.org, aswin@...com,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH -tip/master 3/7] locking/mcs: Remove obsolete comment

On Mon, Jul 28, 2014 at 09:53:58AM -0700, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
> Well, it's not hard to see where the contention is when working on
> locking issues with perf. With mutexes there are only two sources,
> either the task is just spinning trying to get the lock, or its gone to
> the slowpath, and you can see a lot of contention on the wait_lock. 
> 
> So unless I'm missing something, I don't think we'd need to make this
> noinline again -- although I forget why it was changed in the first
> place.

Not to mention that there's no actual caller of this function in the
entire kernel ;-) Currently its just 'documentation' describing what an
actual MCS lock looks like.

Content of type "application/pgp-signature" skipped