linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 0/2] rcu: uninline rcu_lock_acquire() and rcu_lock

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: <20140701145523.GA12547@redhat.com>
Date:	Tue, 1 Jul 2014 16:55:23 +0200
From:	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To:	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc:	Josh Triplett <josh@...htriplett.org>,
	Lai Jiangshan <laijs@...fujitsu.com>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 0/2] rcu: uninline rcu_lock_acquire() and
	rcu_lock_release()

On 06/30, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 06:18:37PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > May be correct this time ;) Based on paulmck/linux-rcu.git rcu/next.
> >
> > 2/2 is new and hopefully trivial. But! the numbers look suspiciously
> > good, I do not understand where does the difference come from...
>
> Probably from rcu_dereference_raw() and rcu_dereference_check(..., 1).  ;-)

Yes, sure, this was the motivation for the patch. But I didn't expect the
50k difference ;)

OK, I understand now. I forgot that every list_for_each_rcu/list_entry_rcu
has rcu_dereference_raw().

> Queued and kicked off testing, both mine and (indirectly) Fengguang's.

Thanks!

Oleg.

--
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/