linux-ext4 - Re: [PATCH] percpu_counter: Fix __percpu_counter

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]

Message-Id: <1228777500.12729.4.camel@twins>
Date:	Tue, 09 Dec 2008 00:05:00 +0100
From:	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
To:	Theodore Tso <tytso@....edu>
Cc:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Eric Dumazet <dada1@...mosbay.com>,
	linux kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
	Mingming Cao <cmm@...ibm.com>, linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] percpu_counter: Fix __percpu_counter_sum()

On Mon, 2008-12-08 at 18:00 -0500, Theodore Tso wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 08, 2008 at 11:20:35PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > 
> > atomic_t is pretty good on all archs, but you get to keep the cacheline
> > ping-pong.
> > 
> 
> Stupid question --- if you're worried about cacheline ping-pongs, why
> aren't each cpu's delta counter cacheline aligned?  With a 64-byte
> cache-line, and a 32-bit counters entry, with less than 16 CPU's we're
> going to be getting cache ping-pong effects with percpu_counter's,
> right?  Or am I missing something?

sorta - a new per-cpu allocator is in the works, but we do cacheline
align the per-cpu allocations (or used to), also, the allocations are
node affine.

--
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