linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 3/4]percpu_counter: fix code for 32bit systems

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]

Date:	Wed, 13 Apr 2011 13:00:13 +0900
From:	"tj@...nel.org" <tj@...nel.org>
To:	Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
Cc:	Shaohua Li <shaohua.li@...el.com>,
	lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	"cl@...ux.com" <cl@...ux.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4]percpu_counter: fix code for 32bit systems

Hello,

On Wed, Apr 13, 2011 at 05:53:40AM +0200, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> Le mercredi 13 avril 2011 à 11:03 +0800, Shaohua Li a écrit :
> > I can do this, but please give a reason. If network code is the only
> > place requiring disable irq, why not network code do it?
> 
> Lot of percpu_counter users dont use full s64 range, but "unsigned long"
> or "unsigned int". Adding a lock on 32bit arches to get the s64, then
> truncate it is not needed.

Yeah, it might hurt 32bit archs a bit but if 64bit becomes better I'll
take that any day.  Also, atomic64_t implementation on x86-32 seems
pretty good and doesn't depend on irq spinlocks (which is quite
expensive), so it shouldn't be too bad.

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/