linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 0/5] Switch arm64 over to qrwlock

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:   Mon, 9 Oct 2017 08:52:43 +0200
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:     Yury Norov <ynorov@...iumnetworks.com>
Cc:     Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, Jeremy.Linton@....com,
        mingo@...hat.com, longman@...hat.com, boqun.feng@...il.com,
        paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/5] Switch arm64 over to qrwlock

On Mon, Oct 09, 2017 at 12:30:52AM +0300, Yury Norov wrote:
> The bottomline of discussion [1] was that queued locks are more
> effective when SoC has many CPUs. And 4 is not many.

qspinlock, yes. qrwlock not, as it fully depends on arch_spinlock_t for
the queueing. qrwlock is just a generic rwlock_t implementation.