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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <CA+55aFyHVYh8VP9r1kohMomw=ed7y_=uQHDxtMsDCEcHKm+tFQ@mail.gmail.com> Date: Mon, 23 May 2016 10:52:09 -0700 From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> Cc: Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>, Davidlohr Bueso <dave@...olabs.net>, Manfred Spraul <manfred@...orfullife.com>, Waiman Long <Waiman.Long@....com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, ggherdovich@...e.com, Mel Gorman <mgorman@...hsingularity.net>, Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Paul McKenney <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>, Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com> Subject: Re: sem_lock() vs qspinlocks On Mon, May 23, 2016 at 5:25 AM, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote: > > Paul has smp_mb__after_unlock_lock() for the RCpc 'upgrade'. How about > something like: > > smp_mb__after_lock() I'd much rather make the naming be higher level. It's not necessarily going to be a "mb", and while the problem is about smp, the primitives it is synchronizing aren't actually smp-specific (ie you're synchronizing a lock that is relevant on UP too). So I'd just call it something like spin_lock_sync_after_lock(); because different locks might have different levels of serialization (ie maybe a spinlock needs one thing, and a mutex needs another - if we start worrying about ordering between spin_lock and mutex_is_locked(), for example, or between mutex_lock() and spin_is_locked()). Hmm? Linus
Powered by blists - more mailing lists