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:	Fri, 08 Aug 2014 12:03:20 -0700
From:	Davidlohr Bueso <>
To:	Waiman Long <>
Cc:	Ingo Molnar <>,
	Peter Zijlstra <>,, Jason Low <>,
	Scott J Norton <>,
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/7] locking/rwsem: check for active writer/spinner
 before wakeup

On Fri, 2014-08-08 at 14:30 -0400, Waiman Long wrote:
> I have 2 issues about this. First of all, the timing windows between 
> atomic_set() and mutex_has_owner() check is really small, I doubt it 
> will be that effective. 

That is true, which is why I didn't bother showing any performance data
in the changelog. However, more important than any performance, avoiding
bogus wakeups is the _right_ thing to do when allowing lock stealing.

> Secondly, I think you may need to call 
> mutex_release() and debug_mutex_unlock() to make the debugging code 
> work, but they seems to be called only under the wait_lock. So I think 
> there is more work that need to be done before this patch is ready.

When !DEBUG both mutex_release() and debug_mutex_unlock() should be
no-ops. So this allows us to do the mutex_has_owner() check *without*
holding the wait_lock.

When DEBUG is set, we don't even bother calling mutex_has_owner(), so
nothing changes.

I don't understand your concern. 


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