linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH-v3 1/4] idr: Percpu ida

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: <00000140a2203fca-f2e76962-a285-4e93-b200-bb05d6501f24-000000@email.amazonses.com>
Date:	Wed, 21 Aug 2013 18:25:58 +0000
From:	Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>
To:	"Nicholas A. Bellinger" <nab@...ux-iscsi.org>
cc:	target-devel <target-devel@...r.kernel.org>,
	lf-virt <virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org>,
	lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	kvm-devel <kvm@...r.kernel.org>,
	"Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>, Asias He <asias@...hat.com>,
	Kent Overstreet <kmo@...erainc.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH-v3 1/4] idr: Percpu ida

On Fri, 16 Aug 2013, Nicholas A. Bellinger wrote:

> +	spinlock_t			lock;

Remove the spinlock.

> +	unsigned			nr_free;
> +	unsigned			freelist[];
> +};
> +
> +static inline void move_tags(unsigned *dst, unsigned *dst_nr,
> +			     unsigned *src, unsigned *src_nr,
> +			     unsigned nr)
> +{
> +	*src_nr -= nr;
> +	memcpy(dst + *dst_nr, src + *src_nr, sizeof(unsigned) * nr);
> +	*dst_nr += nr;
> +}
> +

> +static inline unsigned alloc_local_tag(struct percpu_ida *pool,
> +				       struct percpu_ida_cpu *tags)

Pass the __percpu offset and not the tags pointer.

> +{
> +	int tag = -ENOSPC;
> +
> +	spin_lock(&tags->lock);

Interupts are already disabled. Drop the spinlock.

> +	if (tags->nr_free)
> +		tag = tags->freelist[--tags->nr_free];

You can keep this or avoid address calculation through segment prefixes.
F.e.

if (__this_cpu_read(tags->nrfree) {
	int n = __this_cpu_dec_return(tags->nr_free);
	tag =  __this_cpu_read(tags->freelist[n]);
}

> +	spin_unlock(&tags->lock);

Drop.

> + * Returns a tag - an integer in the range [0..nr_tags) (passed to
> + * tag_pool_init()), or otherwise -ENOSPC on allocation failure.
> + *
> + * Safe to be called from interrupt context (assuming it isn't passed
> + * __GFP_WAIT, of course).
> + *
> + * Will not fail if passed __GFP_WAIT.
> + */
> +int percpu_ida_alloc(struct percpu_ida *pool, gfp_t gfp)
> +{
> +	DEFINE_WAIT(wait);
> +	struct percpu_ida_cpu *tags;
> +	unsigned long flags;
> +	int tag;
> +
> +	local_irq_save(flags);
> +	tags = this_cpu_ptr(pool->tag_cpu);

You could drop this_cpu_ptr if you pass pool->tag_cpu to alloc_local_tag.

> +/**
> + * percpu_ida_free - free a tag
> + * @pool: pool @tag was allocated from
> + * @tag: a tag previously allocated with percpu_ida_alloc()
> + *
> + * Safe to be called from interrupt context.
> + */
> +void percpu_ida_free(struct percpu_ida *pool, unsigned tag)
> +{
> +	struct percpu_ida_cpu *tags;
> +	unsigned long flags;
> +	unsigned nr_free;
> +
> +	BUG_ON(tag >= pool->nr_tags);
> +
> +	local_irq_save(flags);
> +	tags = this_cpu_ptr(pool->tag_cpu);
> +
> +	spin_lock(&tags->lock);

No need for spinlocking
> +	tags->freelist[tags->nr_free++] = tag;

nr_free = __this_cpu_inc_return(pool->tag_cpu.nr_free) ?

__this_cpu_write(pool->tag_cpu.freelist[nr_free], tag)


--
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/