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:	Mon, 28 Jul 2014 10:19:53 -0700
From:	Jason Low <>
To:	Peter Zijlstra <>
Cc:	Davidlohr Bueso <>,,,
Subject: Re: [PATCH -tip/master 3/7] locking/mcs: Remove obsolete comment

On Mon, 2014-07-28 at 18:57 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> 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.

Yeah, we only use the cancellable version of the lock anyway and there's
currently no benefit of changing the regular mcs lock to noinline.

I was mainly thinking it could be helpful in potential later uses of the
regular mcs lock (if anyone comes up with a need to use it) where it
might not be as obvious where the contention is occurring.

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