linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v5 tip/core/rcu 4/9] completion: Replace spin_unlock

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]

Date:   Thu, 17 Aug 2017 14:49:09 +0200
From:   Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
To:     "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, jiangshanlai@...il.com,
        dipankar@...ibm.com, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
        mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com, josh@...htriplett.org,
        tglx@...utronix.de, peterz@...radead.org, rostedt@...dmis.org,
        dhowells@...hat.com, edumazet@...gle.com, fweisbec@...il.com,
        oleg@...hat.com, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
        Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>,
        Andrea Parri <parri.andrea@...il.com>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 tip/core/rcu 4/9] completion: Replace
 spin_unlock_wait() with lock/unlock pair


* Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:

> > this change - or can I pick this up into the scheduler tree?
> 
> Timely question!  ;-)
> 
> My current plan is to send you a pull request like the following later
> today, Pacific Time (but rebased adding Steve Rostedt's Reviewed-by).
> This patch is on one of the branches, currently v4.13-rc2..93d8d7a12090
> ("arch: Remove spin_unlock_wait() arch-specific definitions") in my
> -rcu tree.
> 
> Ah, and v4.13-rc2..7391304c4959 ("membarrier: Expedited private command")
> is mostly outside of RCU as well.
> 
> Since I will be rebasing and remerging anyway, if you would prefer that I
> split the spin_unlock_wait() and/or misc branches out, I am happy to do so.
> If I don't hear otherwise, though, I will send all seven branches using
> my usual approach.
> 
> So, if you want something different than my usual approach, please just
> let me know!

No, all branches together sounds good to me!

If you are rebasing anyway, here are some (very minor) commit title nits I noticed:

>       swait: add idle variants which don't contribute to load average
>       rcu: use idle versions of swait to make idle-hack clear

Capitalization.

>       membarrier: Expedited private command

Should start with a verb.

>       doc: RCU documentation update

  doc: Update RCU documentation

?

>       doc: No longer allowed to use rcu_dereference on non-pointers

  doc: Describe that it is no longer allowed to use rcu_dereference() on non-pointers

?

>       torture: Add --kconfig argument to kvm.sh
>       rcutorture: Don't wait for kernel when all builds fail

Is there a difference between 'torture: ' and 'rcutorture: ' prefixes?

Thanks,

	Ingo