linux-kernel - Re: sched: softlockups in multi_cpu

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: <1425671101.19505.51.camel@stgolabs.net>
Date:	Fri, 06 Mar 2015 11:45:01 -0800
From:	Davidlohr Bueso <dave@...olabs.net>
To:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:	Jason Low <jason.low2@...com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
	Sasha Levin <sasha.levin@...cle.com>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Dave Jones <davej@...emonkey.org.uk>
Subject: Re: sched: softlockups in multi_cpu_stop

On Fri, 2015-03-06 at 11:32 -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> Basically, to me, the whole "if a lock is so contended that we need to
> play locking games, then we should look at why we *use* the lock,
> rather than at the lock itself" is a religion.

Oh absolutely, I'm only mentioning the locking primitive side of
mmap_sem, for which minor optimizations will _never_ solve the actual
scalability issues. But yes, point taken.

Thanks,
Davidlohr

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/