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:	Tue, 23 Sep 2014 20:33:34 +0200 (CEST)
From:	Thomas Gleixner <>
To:	Joonwoo Park <>
cc:, John Stultz <>,
	Tejun Heo <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 RESEND/RFC] timer: make deferrable cpu unbound timers
 really not bound to a cpu

On Mon, 15 Sep 2014, Joonwoo Park wrote:
> +#ifdef CONFIG_SMP
> +static struct tvec_base *tvec_base_deferral = &boot_tvec_bases;
> +#endif

In principle I like the idea of a deferrable wheel, but this
implementation is going to go nowhere.

First of all making it SMP only is silly. The deferrable stuff is a
pain in other places as well.

But whats way worse is:

> +static inline void __run_timers(struct tvec_base *base, bool try)
>  {
>  	struct timer_list *timer;
> -	spin_lock_irq(&base->lock);
> +	if (!try)
> +		spin_lock_irq(&base->lock);
> +	else if (!spin_trylock_irq(&base->lock))
> +		return;

Yuck. All cpus fighting about a single spinlock roughly at the same
time? You just created a proper thundering herd cacheline bouncing

No way. We have already mechanisms in place to deal with such
problems, you just have to use them.


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