linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 4/4]percpu_counter: use atomic64 for counter

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: <20110412191534.GE16342@mtj.dyndns.org>
Date:	Wed, 13 Apr 2011 04:15:34 +0900
From:	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To:	Shaohua Li <shaohua.li@...el.com>
Cc:	lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, cl@...ux.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/4]percpu_counter: use atomic64 for counter

Hello,

On Tue, Apr 12, 2011 at 04:04:06PM +0800, Shaohua Li wrote:
> should tunning the batch count, but if we can make percpu_counter better, why
> not?

First of all, the lock being only in slow paths, it's quite unlikely
to get ever contended.  Also, because the lock duration is always
extremely short, conversion to atomic_t isn't too likely to gain
anything significant, especially in cold paths.

That said, if it's all gains, why not?  I don't know.  Maybe.  Given
problems in the previous patches, I don't feel too enthusiastic for
this series at this point but I'm quite sleep deprived now so it might
just be me not the patch itself.

Thanks.

-- 
tejun
--
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/