| 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: <1219663639.8515.47.camel@twins>
Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2008 13:27:19 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
To: "Aneesh Kumar K.V" <aneesh.kumar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: cmm@...ibm.com, tytso@....edu, sandeen@...hat.com,
linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH -v2] percpu_counters: make fbc->count read atomic
on 32 bit architecture
On Mon, 2008-08-25 at 16:50 +0530, Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote:
> fbc->count is of type s64. The change was introduced by
> 0216bfcffe424a5473daa4da47440881b36c1f4 which changed the type
> from long to s64. Moving to s64 also means on 32 bit architectures
> we can get wrong values on fbc->count. Since fbc->count is read
> more frequently and updated rarely use seqlocks. This should
> reduce the impact of locking in the read path for 32bit arch.
>
> percpu_counter_read is used within interrupt context also. So
> use the irq safe version of seqlock while reading
>
> Signed-off-by: Aneesh Kumar K.V <aneesh.kumar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
> CC: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
> CC: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
> ---
> include/linux/percpu_counter.h | 29 +++++++++++++++++++++++++----
> lib/percpu_counter.c | 20 ++++++++++----------
> 2 files changed, 35 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/include/linux/percpu_counter.h b/include/linux/percpu_counter.h
> index 9007ccd..36f3d2d 100644
> --- a/include/linux/percpu_counter.h
> +++ b/include/linux/percpu_counter.h
> @@ -6,7 +6,7 @@
> * WARNING: these things are HUGE. 4 kbytes per counter on 32-way P4.
> */
>
> -#include <linux/spinlock.h>
> +#include <linux/seqlock.h>
> #include <linux/smp.h>
> #include <linux/list.h>
> #include <linux/threads.h>
> @@ -16,7 +16,7 @@
> #ifdef CONFIG_SMP
>
> struct percpu_counter {
> - spinlock_t lock;
> + seqlock_t lock;
> s64 count;
> #ifdef CONFIG_HOTPLUG_CPU
> struct list_head list; /* All percpu_counters are on a list */
> @@ -53,10 +53,31 @@ static inline s64 percpu_counter_sum(struct percpu_counter *fbc)
> return __percpu_counter_sum(fbc);
> }
>
> -static inline s64 percpu_counter_read(struct percpu_counter *fbc)
> +#if BITS_PER_LONG == 64
> +static inline s64 fbc_count(struct percpu_counter *fbc)
> {
> return fbc->count;
> }
> +#else
> +/* doesn't have atomic 64 bit operation */
> +static inline s64 fbc_count(struct percpu_counter *fbc)
> +{
> + s64 ret;
> + unsigned seq;
> + unsigned long flags;
> + do {
> + seq = read_seqbegin_irqsave(&fbc->lock, flags);
> + ret = fbc->count;
> + } while(read_seqretry_irqrestore(&fbc->lock, seq, flags));
Do we really need to disabled IRQs here? It seems to me the worst that
can happen is that the IRQ will change ->count and increase the sequence
number a bit - a case that is perfectly handled by the current retry
logic.
And not doing the IRQ flags bit saves a lot of time on some archs.
> + return ret;
> +
> +}
> +#endif
> +
> +static inline s64 percpu_counter_read(struct percpu_counter *fbc)
> +{
> + return fbc_count(fbc);
> +}
>
> /*
> * It is possible for the percpu_counter_read() to return a small negative
> @@ -65,7 +86,7 @@ static inline s64 percpu_counter_read(struct percpu_counter *fbc)
> */
> static inline s64 percpu_counter_read_positive(struct percpu_counter *fbc)
> {
> - s64 ret = fbc->count;
> + s64 ret = fbc_count(fbc);
>
> barrier(); /* Prevent reloads of fbc->count */
> if (ret >= 0)
> diff --git a/lib/percpu_counter.c b/lib/percpu_counter.c
> index a866389..83bb809 100644
> --- a/lib/percpu_counter.c
> +++ b/lib/percpu_counter.c
> @@ -18,13 +18,13 @@ void percpu_counter_set(struct percpu_counter *fbc, s64 amount)
> {
> int cpu;
>
> - spin_lock(&fbc->lock);
> + write_seqlock(&fbc->lock);
> for_each_possible_cpu(cpu) {
> s32 *pcount = per_cpu_ptr(fbc->counters, cpu);
> *pcount = 0;
> }
> fbc->count = amount;
> - spin_unlock(&fbc->lock);
> + write_sequnlock(&fbc->lock);
> }
> EXPORT_SYMBOL(percpu_counter_set);
>
> @@ -37,10 +37,10 @@ void __percpu_counter_add(struct percpu_counter *fbc, s64 amount, s32 batch)
> pcount = per_cpu_ptr(fbc->counters, cpu);
> count = *pcount + amount;
> if (count >= batch || count <= -batch) {
> - spin_lock(&fbc->lock);
> + write_seqlock(&fbc->lock);
> fbc->count += count;
> *pcount = 0;
> - spin_unlock(&fbc->lock);
> + write_sequnlock(&fbc->lock);
> } else {
> *pcount = count;
> }
> @@ -57,7 +57,7 @@ s64 __percpu_counter_sum(struct percpu_counter *fbc)
> s64 ret;
> int cpu;
>
> - spin_lock(&fbc->lock);
> + write_seqlock(&fbc->lock);
> ret = fbc->count;
> for_each_online_cpu(cpu) {
> s32 *pcount = per_cpu_ptr(fbc->counters, cpu);
> @@ -66,7 +66,7 @@ s64 __percpu_counter_sum(struct percpu_counter *fbc)
> }
> fbc->count = ret;
>
> - spin_unlock(&fbc->lock);
> + write_sequnlock(&fbc->lock);
> return ret;
> }
> EXPORT_SYMBOL(__percpu_counter_sum);
> @@ -75,7 +75,7 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL(__percpu_counter_sum);
>
> int percpu_counter_init(struct percpu_counter *fbc, s64 amount)
> {
> - spin_lock_init(&fbc->lock);
> + seqlock_init(&fbc->lock);
> fbc->count = amount;
> fbc->counters = alloc_percpu(s32);
> if (!fbc->counters)
> @@ -95,7 +95,7 @@ int percpu_counter_init_irq(struct percpu_counter *fbc, s64 amount)
>
> err = percpu_counter_init(fbc, amount);
> if (!err)
> - lockdep_set_class(&fbc->lock, &percpu_counter_irqsafe);
> + lockdep_set_class(&fbc->lock.lock, &percpu_counter_irqsafe);
> return err;
> }
>
> @@ -130,11 +130,11 @@ static int __cpuinit percpu_counter_hotcpu_callback(struct notifier_block *nb,
> s32 *pcount;
> unsigned long flags;
>
> - spin_lock_irqsave(&fbc->lock, flags);
> + write_seqlock_irqsave(&fbc->lock, flags);
> pcount = per_cpu_ptr(fbc->counters, cpu);
> fbc->count += *pcount;
> *pcount = 0;
> - spin_unlock_irqrestore(&fbc->lock, flags);
> + write_sequnlock_irqrestore(&fbc->lock, flags);
> }
> mutex_unlock(&percpu_counters_lock);
> return NOTIFY_OK;
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" 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