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  PHC 
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:   Thu, 6 Jun 2019 11:21:48 -0400
From:   Alex Kogan <>
To:     Peter Zijlstra <>
Cc:     Waiman Long <>,,,,,,,, Thomas Gleixner <>,,,,
        Steven Sistare <>,
        Daniel Jordan <>,, Rahul Yadav <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/5] locking/qspinlock: Introduce CNA into the slow
 path of qspinlock

>> Also, the paravirt code is under arch/x86, while CNA is generic (not
>> x86-specific).  Do you still want to see CNA-related patching residing
>> under arch/x86?
>> We still need a config option (something like NUMA_AWARE_SPINLOCKS) to
>> enable CNA patching under this config only, correct?
> There is the static_call() stuff that could be generic; I posted a new
> version of that today (x86 only for now, but IIRC there's arm64 patches
> for that around somewhere too).

The static_call technique appears as the more desirable long-term approach, but I think it would be prudent to keep the patches decoupled for now so we can move forward with less entanglements.
So unless anyone objects, we will work on plugging into the existing patching for pv.
And we will keep that code under arch/x86, but will be open for any suggestion to move it elsewhere.

— Alex

Powered by blists - more mailing lists