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  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:	Fri, 3 Jul 2009 23:29:51 +0800
From:	Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>
To:	Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...ymtl.ca>
Cc:	mingo@...e.hu, jolsa@...hat.com, a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	fbl@...hat.com, nhorman@...hat.com, davem@...hat.com,
	htejun@...il.com, jarkao2@...il.com, oleg@...hat.com,
	davidel@...ilserver.org, eric.dumazet@...il.com,
	Paul.McKenney@...ibm.com
Subject: Re: [PATCHv5 2/2] memory barrier: adding smp_mb__after_lock

Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...ymtl.ca> wrote:
> 
> Why don't we create a read_lock without acquire semantic instead (e.g.
> read_lock_nomb(), or something with a better name like __read_lock()) ?
> On architectures where memory barriers are needed to provide the acquire
> semantic, it would be faster to do :
> 
> __read_lock();
> smp_mb();
> 
> than :
> 
> read_lock(); <- e.g. lwsync + isync or something like that
> smp_mb(); <- full sync.

Hmm, why do we even care when read_lock should just die?

Cheers,
-- 
Visit Openswan at http://www.openswan.org/
Email: Herbert Xu ~{PmV>HI~} <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>
Home Page: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/
PGP Key: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/pubkey.txt
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Powered by blists - more mailing lists