linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 007 of 11] knfsd: add svc

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <17613.33830.510025.59046@cse.unsw.edu.au>
Date:	Mon, 31 Jul 2006 14:16:38 +1000
From:	Neil Brown <neilb@...e.de>
To:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>
Cc:	nfs@...ts.sourceforge.net, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 007 of 11] knfsd: add svc_get

On Sunday July 30, akpm@...l.org wrote:
> On Mon, 31 Jul 2006 10:42:19 +1000
> NeilBrown <neilb@...e.de> wrote:
> 
> >  /*
> > + * We use sv_nrthreads as a reference count.  svc_destroy() drops
> > + * this refcount, so we need to bump it up around operations that
> > + * change the number of threads.  Horrible, but there it is.
> > + * Should be called with the BKL held.
> > + */
> > +static inline void svc_get(struct svc_serv *serv)
> > +{
> > +	serv->sv_nrthreads++;
> > +}
> 
> It's a bit odd for a numa-scalability patch to be increasing our dependency
> upon lock_kernel()...

It just looks odd.
This patch doesn't change generated code - it just puts a
post-increment into an inline function so that it can be documented
and well understood.

We don't change the number of threads very often (mainly at bootup and
shutdown) so having that under the BKL isn't a big cost.

NeilBrown
-
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/