linux-kernel - Re: semaphore: lockless fastpath using atomic_{inc,dec}

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20080709130504.728f37d8@infradead.org>
Date:	Wed, 9 Jul 2008 13:05:04 -0700
From:	Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>
To:	Bruno Santos <bsantos@...it.pt>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: semaphore: lockless fastpath using atomic_{inc,dec}_return

> >   
>  From your words if we do:
> 
> spin_lock()
> val = --foo;
> spin_unlock();
> 
> Has the same cost than:
> 
> val = atomic_dec_return(&foo);

yes


> How come I have the same number of atomic ops?
> 
> Let's consider the fast case scenario (semaphore is unlocked for the 
> 'down' and has no waiters for 'up') in x86:
> - with the spinlock only approach we have 2 atomic ops, xadd for
> lock, inc for unlock. The unlock doesn't come for free in x86 after
> all.

the unlock does not use an atomic operation.


-- 
If you want to reach me at my work email, use arjan@...ux.intel.com
For development, discussion and tips for power savings, 
visit http://www.lesswatts.org
--
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/