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  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:	Thu, 19 Mar 2015 13:58:33 -0700
From:	Andrew Morton <>
To:	Peter Zijlstra <>
	Michel Lespinasse <>,
	Andrea Arcangeli <>,
	David Woodhouse <>,
	Rik van Riel <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 6/8] rbtree: Implement generic latch_tree

On Thu, 19 Mar 2015 08:25:02 +0100 Peter Zijlstra <> wrote:

> On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 10:14:46PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > On Wed, 18 Mar 2015 14:36:32 +0100 Peter Zijlstra <> wrote:
> > 
> > >  include/linux/rbtree_latch.h |  223 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > 
> > Did it really need to all be inlined?
> Without that you get actual function calls to the less() and comp()
> operators. This way GCC can inline the lot even though its function
> pointers.
> The typical RB tree user open-codes all this every single time.

Is it a good tradeoff?

> > How much of this code is unneeded on uniprocessor?
> None, UP has NMIs too.

OK.  This code is basically required to support perf/ftrace and
modules, yes?  Presumably small and space-constrained systems aren't
using either, so they don't take the hit.

However CONFIG_MODULES systems which aren't using perf/ftrace _do_ take
a hit.  How many systems are we talking here?  All non-x86?
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