linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/2] lib: Provide generic atomic64

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: <alpine.LFD.2.01.0906131323270.3237@localhost.localdomain>
Date:	Sat, 13 Jun 2009 13:25:54 -0700 (PDT)
From:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>
cc:	benh@...nel.crashing.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
	linuxppc-dev@...abs.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] lib: Provide generic atomic64_t implementation



On Sat, 13 Jun 2009, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> 
> On Sat, 13 Jun 2009, Paul Mackerras wrote:
> >
> > Linus, Andrew: OK if this goes in via the powerpc tree?
> 
> Ok by me.

Btw, do 32-bit architectures really necessarily want 64-bit performance 
counters? 

I realize that 32-bit counters will overflow pretty easily, but I do 
wonder about the performance impact of doing things like hashed spinlocks 
for 64-bit counters. Maybe the downsides of 64-bit perf counters on such 
architectures might outweight the upsides?

		Linus
--
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/