linux-kernel - Re: [MM] Make mm counters per cpu instead of atomic

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.DEB.2.00.0911230830300.26432@router.home>
Date:	Mon, 23 Nov 2009 08:31:40 -0600 (CST)
From:	Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	"Zhang, Yanmin" <yanmin_zhang@...ux.intel.com>
cc:	KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>,
	"hugh.dickins@...cali.co.uk" <hugh.dickins@...cali.co.uk>,
	linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	akpm@...ux-foundation.org, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
Subject: Re: [MM] Make mm counters per cpu instead of atomic

On Mon, 23 Nov 2009, Zhang, Yanmin wrote:

> Another theoretic issue is below scenario:
> Process A get the read lock on cpu 0 and is scheduled to cpu 2 to unlock. Then
> it's scheduled back to cpu 0 to repeat the step. eventually, the reader counter
> will overflow. Considering multiple thread cases, it might be faster to
> overflow than what we imagine. When it overflows, processes will hang there.

True.... We need to find some alternative to per cpu data to scale mmap
sem then.
--
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/