[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Thu, 02 Feb 2012 22:27:34 +0800
From: Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>
To: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
CC: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Prarit Bhargava <prarit@...hat.com>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <greg@...ah.com>,
Dave Young <dyoung@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] lkdtm: use atomic_t to replace count_lock
On 02/02/2012 09:44 PM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Thursday 02 February 2012, Cong Wang wrote:
>>> In order to have an atomic here, you have to use a loop around
>>> atomic_cmpxchg, like
>>>
>>>
>>> int old, new;
>>> old = atomic_read(&count);
>>> do {
>>> new = old ? old - 1 : cpoint_count;
>>> old = cmpxchg(&count, old, new);
>>> } while (old != new);
>>>
>>> I suppose you could also just keep the spinlock and move lkdtm_do_action()
>>> outside of it?
>>
>> If we still need spinlock, I think we don't need to bother atomic_t at all.
>
> Yes, it's one or the other: If you use the cmpxchg loop, you don't need a
> spinlock and vice versa.
>
The cmpxchg loop is for comparing and assigning to 'count', but still
there is a printk() above that needs to read 'count'. Combining these
two operations means we have to use a spinlock, correct? Because there
is a chance that another process could change 'count' in between.
Thanks.
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists