linux-kernel - Re: Improve spinlock performance by moving work to one core

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: <565CB7DD.6010003@hpe.com>
Date:	Mon, 30 Nov 2015 15:55:57 -0500
From:	Waiman Long <waiman.long@....com>
To:	Ling Ma <ling.ma.program@...il.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

On 11/30/2015 01:17 AM, Ling Ma wrote:
> Any comments, the patch is acceptable ?
>
> Thanks
> Ling
>
>
Ling,

The core idea of your current patch hasn't changed from your previous
patch.

My comment is that you should not attempt to sell it as a replacement
of the current spinlock mechanism. I just don't see that will happen
given the change in API semantics. Also, I think there are probably
cases that your patch cannot be applied. So treat it as a separate
synchronization mechanism that can be useful in some scenarios.

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/