linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v7 1/4] lib/percpu-list: Per-cpu list with associated per-cpu locks

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <570E8620.60508@hpe.com>
Date:	Wed, 13 Apr 2016 13:47:12 -0400
From:	Waiman Long <waiman.long@....com>
To:	Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>
CC:	Alexander Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>, Jan Kara <jack@...e.com>,
	Jeff Layton <jlayton@...chiereds.net>,
	"J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@...ldses.org>,
	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>, <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
	<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
	Dave Chinner <dchinner@...hat.com>,
	Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>,
	Scott J Norton <scott.norton@....com>,
	Douglas Hatch <doug.hatch@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 1/4] lib/percpu-list: Per-cpu list with associated
 per-cpu locks

On 04/13/2016 11:03 AM, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> On Tue, 12 Apr 2016, Waiman Long wrote:
>
>> List entry insertion is strictly per cpu. List deletion, however, can
>> happen in a cpu other than the one that did the insertion. So we still
>> need lock to protect the list. Because of that, there may still be
>> a small amount of contention when deletion is being done.
> Ok then the list is not per cpu anymore. Can we call this something else
> please to avoid confusion? Spinlocks in per cpu structures are a bit
> confusing otherwise. Seems that there is no requirement that the list can
> only be accessed from a single cpu so its not per cpu per se anymore.
>
> Maybe lock-list instead of percpu-list?
>

I am fine with a name change. I am not that good in naming stuff. How 
about distributed and locked list, or dlock_list in short?

Cheers,
Longman