linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 1/1] stop_machine: Remove stop_cpus_lock and lg_double

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: <20151124095156.GP17308@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date:	Tue, 24 Nov 2015 10:51:56 +0100
From:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
Cc:	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
	Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/1] stop_machine: Remove stop_cpus_lock and
 lg_double_lock/unlock()

On Mon, Nov 23, 2015 at 04:53:39PM -0500, Tejun Heo wrote:
> 
> Isn't this a lot more subtler than the other direction?  Unless
> there's a clear performance advantage to removing stopper->lock, using
> lglock for both stop_two and stop_machine seems like an
> easier-to-follow approach to me.

The idea is to kill lglock. There's only two users, this and fs/locks.c
for which I have patches -- which are being benchmarked 'now-ish' :-)
--
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/