linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH tip/core/rcu 8/9] rcu: Simplify _rcu

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20130820185006.GM29406@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date:	Tue, 20 Aug 2013 11:50:06 -0700
From:	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:	Lai Jiangshan <laijs@...fujitsu.com>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, mingo@...e.hu, dipankar@...ibm.com,
	akpm@...ux-foundation.org, mathieu.desnoyers@...ymtl.ca,
	josh@...htriplett.org, niv@...ibm.com, tglx@...utronix.de,
	peterz@...radead.org, rostedt@...dmis.org, dhowells@...hat.com,
	edumazet@...gle.com, darren@...art.com, fweisbec@...il.com,
	sbw@....edu
Subject: Re: [PATCH tip/core/rcu 8/9] rcu: Simplify _rcu_barrier() processing

On Tue, Aug 20, 2013 at 05:48:01PM +0800, Lai Jiangshan wrote:
> On 08/20/2013 10:42 AM, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
> > 
> > This commit drops an unneeded ACCESS_ONCE() and simplifies an "our work
> > is done" check in _rcu_barrier().  This applies feedback from Linus
> > (https://lkml.org/lkml/2013/7/26/777) that he gave to similar code
> > in an unrelated patch.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
> > Reviewed-by: Josh Triplett <josh@...htriplett.org>
> > ---
> >  kernel/rcutree.c | 15 +++++++++++++--
> >  1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/kernel/rcutree.c b/kernel/rcutree.c
> > index c6a064a..612aff1 100644
> > --- a/kernel/rcutree.c
> > +++ b/kernel/rcutree.c
> > @@ -2817,9 +2817,20 @@ static void _rcu_barrier(struct rcu_state *rsp)
> >  	 * transition.  The "if" expression below therefore rounds the old
> >  	 * value up to the next even number and adds two before comparing.
> >  	 */
> > -	snap_done = ACCESS_ONCE(rsp->n_barrier_done);
> > +	snap_done = rsp->n_barrier_done;
> >  	_rcu_barrier_trace(rsp, "Check", -1, snap_done);
> > -	if (ULONG_CMP_GE(snap_done, ((snap + 1) & ~0x1) + 2)) {
> > +
> > +	/*
> > +	 * If the value in snap is odd, we needed to wait for the current
> > +	 * rcu_barrier() to complete, then wait for the next one, in other
> > +	 * words, we need the value of snap_done to be three larger than
> > +	 * the value of snap.  On the other hand, if the value in snap is
> > +	 * even, we only had to wait for the next rcu_barrier() to complete,
> > +	 * in other words, we need the value of snap_done to be only two
> > +	 * greater than the value of snap.  The "(snap + 3) & 0x1" computes
> 
> "(snap + 3) & 0x1"
> ==> "(snap + 3) & ~0x1"

Good catch, fixed!

							Thanx, Paul

> > +	 * this for us (thank you, Linus!).
> > +	 */
> > +	if (ULONG_CMP_GE(snap_done, (snap + 3) & ~0x1)) {
> >  		_rcu_barrier_trace(rsp, "EarlyExit", -1, snap_done);
> >  		smp_mb(); /* caller's subsequent code after above check. */
> >  		mutex_unlock(&rsp->barrier_mutex);
> 

--
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/