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  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, 2 Nov 2017 09:25:36 -0400
From:   Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>
To:     Boris Ostrovsky <boris.ostrovsky@...cle.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>
Cc:     x86@...nel.org, virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
        kvm@...r.kernel.org, xen-devel@...ts.xenproject.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Juergen Gross <jgross@...e.com>,
        Alok Kataria <akataria@...are.com>,
        Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>,
        Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
        Radim Krčmář <rkrcmar@...hat.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH-tip v2 2/2] x86/xen: Deprecate xen_nopvspin

On 11/01/2017 06:01 PM, Boris Ostrovsky wrote:
> On 11/01/2017 04:58 PM, Waiman Long wrote:
>> +/* TODO: To be removed in a future kernel version */
>>  static __init int xen_parse_nopvspin(char *arg)
>>  {
>> -	xen_pvspin = false;
>> +	pr_warn("xen_nopvspin is deprecated, replace it with \"pvlock_type=queued\"!\n");
>> +	if (!pv_spinlock_type)
>> +		pv_spinlock_type = locktype_queued;
> Since we currently end up using unfair locks and because you are
> deprecating xen_nopvspin I wonder whether it would be better to set this
> to locktype_unfair so that current behavior doesn't change. (Sorry, I
> haven't responded to your earlier message before you posted this). Juergen?

I think the latest patch from Juergen in tip is to use native qspinlock
when xen_nopvspin is specified. Right? That is why I made the current
choice. I can certainly change to unfair if it is what you guys want.

> I am also not sure I agree with making pv_spinlock an enum *and* a
> bitmask at the same time. I understand that it makes checks easier but I
> think not assuming a value or a pattern would be better, especially
> since none of the uses is on a critical path.
>
> (For example, !pv_spinlock_type is the same as locktype_auto, which is
> defined but never used)

OK, I will take out the enum and make explicit use of locktype_auto.

Cheers,
Longman

Powered by blists - more mailing lists