linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] lib/percpu_counter.c: disable local irq when updating percpu couter

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: <CACVXFVPN1VSP6khBhEgRR7Cdpmh2CQDQ4u9e-YHiS=7w1YE6Fw@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Wed, 8 Jan 2014 12:30:47 +0800
From:	Ming Lei <tom.leiming@...il.com>
To:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Paul Gortmaker <paul.gortmaker@...driver.com>,
	Shaohua Li <shli@...ionio.com>, Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>,
	Fan Du <fan.du@...driver.com>, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] lib/percpu_counter.c: disable local irq when updating
 percpu couter

On Wed, Jan 8, 2014 at 11:29 AM, Ming Lei <tom.leiming@...il.com> wrote:
> Hi Andrew,
>
> On Wed, Jan 8, 2014 at 9:36 AM, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
>>> I am wondering if the above patch is more efficient, because:
>>>
>>> - raw_local_irq_save()/raw_local_irq_restore() should be cheaper
>>> than preempt_enable() in theory
>>
>> Don't think so - local_irq_disable() requires quite some internal
>> synchronization in the CPU and is expensive.  preempt_disable() is just
>
> Yes, it might be a little expensive on some CPUs, but should be
> arch-dependent(CPU inside things are involved)
>
>> an add+barrier, minus the add if the kernel is non-preemptable.
>
> IMO, generally, from software view, local_irq_save() only save the
> CPU's interrupt mask to the local variable 'flag', and sets irq mask
> to register, considered local variable can be thought to be in cache,
> so I think it might be cheaper than preempt_enable() because
> preempt counter may not be in cache.
>
> Also this_cpu_add() won't work in batch path(slow path), we still
> need to avoid interrupt coming between reading the percpu counter
> and resetting it, otherwise counts might be lost too, :-)

Sorry, I miss the __this_cpu_sub() in slow path, so it is correct, and
even preempt_enable() and preempt_disable() can be removed.


Thanks,
-- 
Ming Lei
--
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/