linux-kernel - Re: [patch v3 3/3] percpu_counter: use atomic64 for counter in SMP

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.2.00.1104180923530.23207@router.home>
Date:	Mon, 18 Apr 2011 09:25:50 -0500 (CDT)
From:	Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>
To:	Shaohua Li <shaohua.li@...el.com>
cc:	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"akpm@...ux-foundation.org" <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	"eric.dumazet@...il.com" <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [patch v3 3/3] percpu_counter: use atomic64 for counter in SMP

On Mon, 18 Apr 2011, Shaohua Li wrote:

> > Disabling preemption here doesn't make any sense.
> > percpu_counter_set() inherently requires its users to guarantee that
> > no other user is modifying the percpu counter.
> ha, ok.
> should I still rebase the patch against Christoph's patch? Looks that
> one is still not settled down.

I am a kind of confused about some of the arguments made there right now
and having your patch in that does the conversion to atomic would
simplify my patch (removes the spin_lock/unlock sequence in overflow
handling).


--
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/