linux-kernel - Re: [RFC][PATCH 1/7] Resource counters

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:	Wed, 14 Mar 2007 10:12:11 +0300
From:	Pavel Emelianov <xemul@...ru>
To:	vatsa@...ibm.com
CC:	Herbert Poetzl <herbert@...hfloor.at>,
	"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
	containers@...ts.osdl.org, Paul Menage <menage@...gle.com>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 1/7] Resource counters

Srivatsa Vaddagiri wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 13, 2007 at 06:41:05PM +0300, Pavel Emelianov wrote:
>>> right, but atomic ops have much less impact on most
>>> architectures than locks :)
>> Right. But atomic_add_unless() is slower as it is
>> essentially a loop. See my previous letter in this sub-thread.
> 
> If I am not mistaken, you shouldn't loop in normal cases, which means
> it boils down to a atomic_read() + atomic_cmpxch()
> 
> 

So does the lock - in a normal case (when it's not
heavily contented) it will boil down to atomic_dec_and_test().

Nevertheless, making charge like in this patchset
requires two atomic ops with atomic_xxx and only
one with spin_lock().
-
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/