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
| ||
|
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 2015 12:28:56 +0800 From: Ling Ma <ling.ma.program@...il.com> To: Waiman Long <waiman.long@....com> Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, mingo@...hat.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Ling <ling.ml@...baba-inc.com> Subject: Re: Improve spinlock performance by moving work to one core Longman Thanks for your suggestion. We will look for real scenario to test, and could you please introduce some benchmarks on spinlock ? Regards Ling > > Your new spinlock code completely change the API and the semantics of the > existing spinlock calls. That requires changes to thousands of places > throughout the whole kernel. It also increases the size of the spinlock from > 4 bytes to 32 bytes. It is basically a no-go. > > However, if you can improve the performance within the existing API and > locking semantics, it will be much more acceptable. > > Cheers, > Longman -- 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