linux-kernel - Re: [4.2, Regression] Queued spinlocks cause major XFS performance regression

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: <20150907065703.GX3644@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date:	Mon, 7 Sep 2015 08:57:03 +0200
From:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:	Davidlohr Bueso <dave@...olabs.net>
Cc:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Waiman Long <Waiman.Long@...com>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [4.2, Regression] Queued spinlocks cause major XFS performance
 regression

On Sun, Sep 06, 2015 at 05:05:46PM -0700, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
> On Fri, 04 Sep 2015, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> 
> >-static inline bool virt_queued_spin_lock(struct qspinlock *lock)
> >+static inline bool virt_spin_lock(struct qspinlock *lock)
> 
> Given that we fall back to the cmpxchg loop even when PARAVIRT is not in the
> picture, I believe this function is horribly misnamed.

Just to continue the argument for arguments sake, the function is named
'virt' (not paravirt) and tests the HYPERVISOR CPUID bit. How is that
not appropriately named?
--
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/