linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/2] kfifo: round up the fifo size power of 2

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: <20121031041626.0011c748.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Date:	Wed, 31 Oct 2012 04:16:26 -0700
From:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	Janne Kulmala <janne.t.kulmala@....fi>
Cc:	Stefani Seibold <stefani@...bold.net>,
	Yuanhan Liu <yuanhan.liu@...ux.intel.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] kfifo: round up the fifo size power of 2

On Wed, 31 Oct 2012 10:11:06 +0200 Janne Kulmala <janne.t.kulmala@....fi> wrote:

> On 10/31/2012 08:52 AM, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > On Wed, 31 Oct 2012 07:30:33 +0100 Stefani Seibold <stefani@...bold.net> wrote:
> >
> >>> Yes, and I guess the same to give them a 64-element one.
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>> If there's absolutely no prospect that the kfifo code will ever support
> >>>> 100-byte fifos then I guess we should rework the API so that the caller
> >>>> has to pass in log2 of the size, not the size itself.  That way there
> >>>> will be no surprises and no mistakes.
> >>>>
> >>>> That being said, the power-of-2 limitation isn't at all intrinsic to a
> >>>> fifo, so we shouldn't do this.  Ideally, we'd change the kfifo
> >>>> implementation so it does what the caller asked it to do!
> >>>
> >>> I'm fine with removing the power-of-2 limitation. Stefani, what's your
> >>> comment on that?
> >>>
> >>
> >> You can't remove the power-of-2-limitation, since this would result in a
> >> performance decrease (bit wise and vs. modulo operation).
> >
> > Probably an insignificant change in performance.
> >
> > It could be made much smaller by just never doing the modulus operation
> > - instead do
> >
> > 	if (++index == max)
> > 		index = 0;
> >
> 
> This can not be done, since the index manipulation kfifo does not use locks.

Oh come on.  Look:

                        __kfifo->out++; \

and look:

 * Note that with only one concurrent reader and one concurrent
 * writer, you don't need extra locking to use these macro.


--
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/