linux-kernel - Re: [RFC][PATCH 11/13] fs/locks: Replace lg

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: <20150623001959.GA8723@redhat.com>
Date:	Tue, 23 Jun 2015 02:19:59 +0200
From:	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:	paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, tj@...nel.org, mingo@...hat.com,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, der.herr@...r.at, dave@...olabs.net,
	riel@...hat.com, viro@...IV.linux.org.uk,
	torvalds@...ux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 11/13] fs/locks: Replace lg_local with a per-cpu
	spinlock

Off-topic question,

On 06/22, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
> @@ -2650,9 +2660,8 @@ static void *locks_start(struct seq_file
>  
>  	iter->li_pos = *pos + 1;
>  	percpu_down_write(&file_rwsem);
> -	lg_global_lock(&file_lock_lglock);
>  	spin_lock(&blocked_lock_lock);
> -	return seq_hlist_start_percpu(&file_lock_list, &iter->li_cpu, *pos);
> +	return seq_hlist_start_percpu(&file_lock_list.hlist, &iter->li_cpu, *pos);
>  }

...

>  static void locks_stop(struct seq_file *f, void *v)
>  	__releases(&blocked_lock_lock)
>  {
>  	spin_unlock(&blocked_lock_lock);

With or without this patch, why locks_start/locks_stop need to take/drop
blocked_lock_lock ?

Oleg.

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/