linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] local

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: <20070109141112.1bfb6ef5.akpm@osdl.org>
Date:	Tue, 9 Jan 2007 14:11:12 -0800
From:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>
To:	Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...ymtl.ca>
Cc:	Pavel Machek <pavel@...e.cz>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...e.de>,
	Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>, ltt-dev@...fik.org,
	systemtap@...rces.redhat.com,
	Douglas Niehaus <niehaus@...s.ku.edu>,
	"Martin J. Bligh" <mbligh@...igh.org>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] local_t : Documentation

On Tue, 9 Jan 2007 17:06:16 -0500
Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...ymtl.ca> wrote:

> * Andrew Morton (akpm@...l.org) wrote:
> > On Mon, 8 Jan 2007 22:14:46 -0500
> > Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...ymtl.ca> wrote:
> > 
> > > +* How to use local atomic operations
> > > +
> > > +#include <linux/percpu.h>
> > > +#include <asm/local.h>
> > > +
> > > +static DEFINE_PER_CPU(local_t, counters) = LOCAL_INIT(0);
> > > +
> > > +
> > > +* Counting
> > > +
> > > +In preemptible context, use get_cpu_var() and put_cpu_var() around local atomic
> > > +operations : it makes sure that preemption is disabled around write access to
> > > +the per cpu variable. For instance :
> > > +
> > > +	local_inc(&get_cpu_var(counters));
> > > +	put_cpu_var(counters);
> > 
> > Confused.  The whole point behind local_t is that we can do
> > atomic-wrt-interrupts inc and dec on them.
> > 
> > Consequently, as atomic-wrt-interrupts means atomic-wrt-preemption, there
> > is no need to do a preempt_disable() around local_inc() and local_dec().
> > 
> 
> Hi Andrew,
> 
> Not exactly : the increment operation is atomic, but not the selection of the
> local variable. local_inc(&__get_cpu_var()) implies the following sequence 
> of operations :
> 
> 1 - Get the variable copy corresponding to the currently running CPU.
> 2 - atomically increment the variable.
> 
> It would be wrong to be scheduled on another CPU between 1 and 2, because the
> atomic increment should only be done by the CPU "owner" of the local variable,
> as the local atomic increment is not atomic wrt other CPUs.
> 

doh.  I knew that.
-
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/