linux-kernel - Re: [RFC][PATCH] ring-buffer: Replace this_cpu_{read,write} with this_cpu

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: <20150317101113.32f5618a@gandalf.local.home>
Date:	Tue, 17 Mar 2015 10:11:13 -0400
From:	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To:	Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>
Cc:	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
	Uwe Kleine-König 
	<u.kleine-koenig@...gutronix.de>,
	linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
	Russell King <linux@....linux.org.uk>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH] ring-buffer: Replace this_cpu_{read,write} with
 this_cpu_ptr()

On Tue, 17 Mar 2015 08:13:41 -0400
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org> wrote:

> > > I may go and remove all this_cpu_read,write() calls from my code
> > > because of this.
> > 
> > You could do that with __this_cpo_* but not this_cpu_*(). Doing
> > it to this_cpu_* would make the operations no longer per cpu atomic. If
> > they do not need per cpu atomicity then you could have used __this_cpu_*
> > instead. And  __this_cpu_* do not disable preemption or interrupts.
> 
> I do not need it to be atomic.

I test this out with __this_cpu_* versions and see if that solves it
too. If it does, I'll use that version instead.

Thanks,

-- Steve
--
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/