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  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]
Date:	Mon, 6 Oct 2014 14:28:26 +0200 (CEST)
From:	Thomas Gleixner <>
To:	David Lang <>
cc:	Christoph Lameter <>,
	Richard Cochran <>,
Subject: Re: Why do we still have 32 bit counters? Interrupt counters overflow
 within 50 days

On Mon, 6 Oct 2014, David Lang wrote:
> On Sun, 5 Oct 2014, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > > 
> > > 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.
> As I understand it, since the 64 bit math cannot be made atomic, it requires
> protecting the counter with a lock so that it can't be read while half
> updated. Aquiring a lock on every update is an expensive thing to do. It's not
> something people like to see in a fast path, especially for something of as
> low an importance as the counters.

As I said before. Both reader and writer side are already protected by
the irq descriptor lock. We take that lock anyway.


To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

Powered by blists - more mailing lists