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  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:	Tue, 29 Jul 2008 10:47:14 +0900
From:	Tejun Heo <>
To:	Peter Zijlstra <>
CC:, Andrew Morton <>,
	Jens Axboe <>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <>,
	Paul E McKenney <>,
	Ingo Molnar <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] RCU: implement rcu_read_[un]lock_preempt()

Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>>> If you need preempt off you need it for other reasons than RCU, so
>>> mixing it in the interface doesn't make sense to me.
>> Hmmm... the point of the interface is avoiding doing double preemption
>> operations as on common configurations rcu_read_lock() disables
>> preemption.
> Should be really cheap then, because the cacheline is already hot.

Yeah, it is, so it is eventually a peripheral issue.

>>   Yes, it's for different purposes but we have two partially
>> overlapping ops and implementing combined / collapsed ops for such cases
>> is acceptable, I think.
> They only overlap for !PREEMPT_RCU || !PREEMPT_RT

That part is pretty large tho.

>> Using get_cpu() or separate preempt_disable() wouldn't incur noticeable
>> performance difference as preemption is really cheap to manipulate but
>> both per-cpu and RCU are for performance optimization and I think having
>> combined ops is a good idea.
> I don't as its a nightmare to sort out on -rt, where get_cpu() can be
> converted to get_cpu_locked(), and rcu_read_lock() never disables
> preemption.
> If you convert it to use get_cpu() the conversion is easy, if you
> introduce this collapsed primitive we're up shit creek because it
> doesn't map.

I don't get it.  So, rcu_read_lock(); preempt_disable(); doesn't map for RT?

> Nor does it tell us why you need preempt disabled. Making it just as bad
> as open-coded preempt_disable()s.

Heh.. the code probably would have used preempt_disable() if it were not
for the combined ops, so the objection is about using preempt_disable()?

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

Powered by blists - more mailing lists