linux-kernel - Re: sem_lock() vs qspinlocks

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: <20160520074946.GA3193@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date:	Fri, 20 May 2016 09:49:46 +0200
From:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:	Davidlohr Bueso <dave@...olabs.net>
Cc:	manfred@...orfullife.com, Waiman.Long@....com, mingo@...nel.org,
	torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, ggherdovich@...e.com,
	mgorman@...hsingularity.net, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: sem_lock() vs qspinlocks

On Thu, May 19, 2016 at 10:39:26PM -0700, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
>  In addition, this makes me wonder if queued_spin_is_locked() should then be:
> 
> -	return atomic_read(&lock->val);
> +	return atomic_read(&lock->val) & _Q_LOCKED_MASK;
> 
> And avoid considering pending waiters as locked.

Probably