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: <20150609112142.GU3644@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date:	Tue, 9 Jun 2015 13:21:42 +0200
From:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Cc:	Davidlohr Bueso <dave@...olabs.net>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
	Mike Galbraith <umgwanakikbuti@...il.com>,
	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH -rfc 4/4] locking/rtmutex: Support spin on owner (osq)

On Tue, Jun 09, 2015 at 11:29:59AM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> 
> If you look at the RT code, then you'll notice that in the slow lock
> path we queue the incoming waiter (including the PI dance) and then
> spin only if the waiter is the top waiter on the lock.

On a related note; does the RT code still add lock stealing to rtmutex?

We allow higher prio lock stealing, but I seem to remember a longish
debate if we should allow equal prio lock stealing.
--
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/

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ