linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 01/15] perf_counter: unify and fix delayed counter wakeup

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:	Tue, 31 Mar 2009 08:37:05 +0200
From:	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
To:	Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>
Cc:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 01/15] perf_counter: unify and fix delayed counter
 wakeup

On Tue, 2009-03-31 at 16:45 +1100, Paul Mackerras wrote:
> Peter Zijlstra writes:
> 
> > +void perf_counter_wakeup(struct perf_counter *counter)
> > +{
> > +	struct perf_mmap_data *data;
> > +
> > +	rcu_read_lock();
> > +	data = rcu_dereference(counter->data);
> > +	if (data) {
> > +		(void)atomic_xchg(&data->wakeup, POLL_IN);
> 
> Really just a nit, but how is this atomic_xchg any different from
> atomic_set(&data->wakeup, POLL_IN) aside from being slower?

Probably, I got my head in a twist, atomic_set() is simply an unlocked
assignment (although volatile), and I read the value using a locked
xchg().

I wasn't sure how these two would interact and so I chickened out :-)

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/