linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH RFC] locking/mutexes: don't spin on owner when wait list is not NULL.

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: <20160122024854.GB23224@linux-uzut.site>
Date:	Thu, 21 Jan 2016 18:48:54 -0800
From:	Davidlohr Bueso <dave@...olabs.net>
To:	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc:	Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com>,
	Ding Tianhong <dingtianhong@...wei.com>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Will Deacon <Will.Deacon@....com>,
	Jason Low <jason.low2@...com>, Waiman Long <Waiman.Long@...com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC] locking/mutexes: don't spin on owner when wait list
 is not NULL.

On Thu, 21 Jan 2016, Paul E. McKenney wrote:

>I did some testing, which exposed it to the 0day test robot, which
>did note some performance differences.  I was hoping that it would
>clear up some instability from other patches, but no such luck.  ;-)

Oh, that explains why we got a performance regression report :)

Thanks,
Davidlohr