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, 22 Dec 2014 09:40:43 -0700
From:	Khalid Aziz <>
To:	Thomas Gleixner <>
CC:	Peter Zijlstra <>,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
Subject: Re: [PATCH RESEND v4] sched/fair: Add advisory flag for borrowing
 a timeslice

On 12/19/2014 04:57 PM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Fri, 19 Dec 2014, Khalid Aziz wrote:
>> The queuing problem caused by a task taking a contended lock just before its
>> current timeslice is up which userspace app wouldn't know about, is a real
>> problem nevertheless.
> We know that already.
>> My patch attempts to avoid the contention in the first
>> place. futex with adaptive spinning is a post-contention solution that tries
>> to minimize the cost of contention but does nothing to avoid the contention.
> I never said that adaptive spinning can solve that problem.
> If you would have carefuly read what I wrote, you might have noticed,
> that I said:
>       a proper futex like spin mechanism
> Can you spot the subtle difference between that phrase and 'futex with
> adaptive spinning'?
>> Solving this problem using futex can help only if the userspace lock uses
>> futex.
> A really fundamentally new and earth shattering insight.
> If you would spend your time to actually digest what maintainers are
> telling you, we might make progress on that matter.
> But you prefer to spend your time by repeating yourself and providing
> completely useless information.
> What you are missing completely here is that neither me nor other
> maintainers involved care about how you spend your time. But we very
> much care about the time WE waste with your behaviour.

I am sorry that you feel the need to continue to resort to personal 
attacks even after I made it clear in my last response that I was not 
going to pursue this patch. There is no possibility of a productive 
discussion of a solution at this point. I hope someone else can find a 
solution you find acceptable.


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