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: <AS1PR10MB5675DC0F58D71A8C82B49B14EB8B9@AS1PR10MB5675.EURPRD10.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM> Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2023 09:39:38 +0000 From: "Bouska, Zdenek" <zdenek.bouska@...mens.com> To: Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>, Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com> CC: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, "linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org" <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>, "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, "Kiszka, Jan" <jan.kiszka@...mens.com>, "linux-rt-users@...r.kernel.org" <linux-rt-users@...r.kernel.org>, Nishanth Menon <nm@...com>, Puranjay Mohan <p-mohan@...com> Subject: Re: Unfair qspinlocks on ARM64 without LSE atomics => 3ms delay in interrupt handling > > A longer cpu_relax() here would improve things (on arm64 this function > > is a no-op) but maybe Thomas or Will have a better idea. > > I had a pretty gross cpu_relax() implementation using wfe somewhere on > LKML, so you could try that if you can dig it up. Do you mean cpu_relax() implementation from this email [1] from Fri, 28 Jul 2017 ? I tried to rebase it on recent Linux, but it did not even boot for me. Only this was printed: [ 0.000000] Booting Linux on physical CPU 0x0000000000 [0x410fd034] [ 0 But cpu_relax() implementation from [1] fixes my problem if I use it only in irq_finalize_oneshot(). [1] https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20170728092831.GA24839@arm.com/ Zdenek Bouska -- Siemens, s.r.o Siemens Advanta Development
Powered by blists - more mailing lists