linux-kernel - Re: Why do we still have 32 bit counters? Interrupt counters overflow within 50 days

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: <alpine.DEB.2.11.1410052331420.4383@nanos>
Date:	Sun, 5 Oct 2014 23:49:14 +0200 (CEST)
From:	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To:	Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>
cc:	Richard Cochran <richardcochran@...il.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Why do we still have 32 bit counters? Interrupt counters overflow
 within 50 days

On Fri, 3 Oct 2014, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> On Fri, 3 Oct 2014, Richard Cochran wrote:
> 
> > >  DECLARE_PER_CPU(char *, irq_stack_ptr);
> > > -DECLARE_PER_CPU(unsigned int, irq_count);
> > > +DECLARE_PER_CPU(unsigned long, irq_count);
> >
> > Still 32 bit on 32 bit machines...
> 
> 64 bit counters on 32 bit machines are not an easy thing and could be

Whats so hard about 64bit counters on 32bit machines?

> expensive to handle in particular because these counters are used in
> performance critical hotpaths.

The expensive overhead is a single "adcl" instruction.

> I thought I better leave it alone on 32 bit.

And how exactly are we supposed to explain the different behaviour to
users?

Thanks,

	tglx
--
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/