linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 1/7] locking/pvqspinlock: Unconditional PV kick with _Q_SLOW

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: <1437863509.3298.71.camel@stgolabs.net>
Date:	Sat, 25 Jul 2015 15:31:49 -0700
From:	Davidlohr Bueso <dave@...olabs.net>
To:	Waiman Long <Waiman.Long@...com>
Cc:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, x86@...nel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Scott J Norton <scott.norton@...com>,
	Douglas Hatch <doug.hatch@...com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/7] locking/pvqspinlock: Unconditional PV kick with
 _Q_SLOW_VAL

On Wed, 2015-07-22 at 16:12 -0400, Waiman Long wrote:
> The smp_store_release() is not a full barrier. In order to avoid missed
> wakeup, we may need to add memory barrier around locked and cpu state
> variables adding to complexity. As the chance of spurious wakeup is very
> low, it is easier and safer to just do an unconditional kick at unlock
> time.

Although I guess if SPIN_THRESHOLD is ever enlarged, the chances of
spurious wakeups would be greater.

> Signed-off-by: Waiman Long <Waiman.Long@...com>

Reviewed-by: Davidlohr Bueso <dave@...olabs.net>

--
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/