linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH tip/core/rcu 16/27] rcu: Add comment documenting how rcu_seq

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: <20180628174240.GM3593@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date:   Thu, 28 Jun 2018 10:42:40 -0700
From:   "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:     Joel Fernandes <joel@...lfernandes.org>
Cc:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, mingo@...nel.org,
        jiangshanlai@...il.com, dipankar@...ibm.com,
        akpm@...ux-foundation.org, mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com,
        josh@...htriplett.org, tglx@...utronix.de, rostedt@...dmis.org,
        dhowells@...hat.com, edumazet@...gle.com, fweisbec@...il.com,
        oleg@...hat.com, kernel-team@...roid.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH tip/core/rcu 16/27] rcu: Add comment documenting how
 rcu_seq_snap works

On Wed, Jun 27, 2018 at 10:10:28PM -0700, Joel Fernandes wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 27, 2018 at 11:27:26AM -0700, Joel Fernandes wrote:
> [..]
> > > > > 	s = __ALIGN_MASK(s, RCU_SEQ_STATE_MASK);
> > > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > I agree with Peter's suggestions for both the verbiage reduction in the
> > > > comments in the header, as the new code he is proposing is more
> > > > self-documenting. I believe I proposed a big comment just because the code
> > > > wasn't self-documenting or obvious previously so needed an explanation.
> > > > 
> > > > How would you like to proceed? Let me know what you guys decide, I am really
> > > > Ok with anything. If you guys agree, should I write a follow-up patch with
> > > > Peter's suggestion that applies on top of this one?  Or do we want to drop
> > > > this one in favor of Peter's suggestion?
> > > 
> > > Shortening the comment would be good, so please do that.
> 
> Paul,
> 
> Do you want to fold the below patch into the original one? Or do you prefer I
> resent the original patch fixed up?
> 
> Following is the patch ontop of current 'dev' branch in your tree, with the
> excessive comments removed.
> 
> Thanks to Peter for suggesting!

I merged this into the current commit, with the result shown below.

Thank you both!

							Thanx, Paul

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

commit c9a6ed70aad9f4571afba3e12e869f5fccc26a40
Author: Joel Fernandes (Google) <joel@...lfernandes.org>
Date:   Tue May 22 23:38:13 2018 -0700

    rcu: Add comment documenting how rcu_seq_snap works
    
    rcu_seq_snap may be tricky to decipher. Lets document how it works with
    an example to make it easier.
    
    Signed-off-by: Joel Fernandes (Google) <joel@...lfernandes.org>
    Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
    [ paulmck: Shrink comment as suggested by Peter Zijlstra. ]

diff --git a/kernel/rcu/rcu.h b/kernel/rcu/rcu.h
index aa215d6355f8..89f13fffac73 100644
--- a/kernel/rcu/rcu.h
+++ b/kernel/rcu/rcu.h
@@ -91,7 +91,17 @@ static inline void rcu_seq_end(unsigned long *sp)
 	WRITE_ONCE(*sp, rcu_seq_endval(sp));
 }
 
-/* Take a snapshot of the update side's sequence number. */
+/*
+ * rcu_seq_snap - Take a snapshot of the update side's sequence number.
+ *
+ * This function returns the earliest value of the grace-period sequence number
+ * that will indicate that a full grace period has elapsed since the current
+ * time.  Once the grace-period sequence number has reached this value, it will
+ * be safe to invoke all callbacks that have been registered prior to the
+ * current time. This value is the current grace-period number plus two to the
+ * power of the number of low-order bits reserved for state, then rounded up to
+ * the next value in which the state bits are all zero.
+ */
 static inline unsigned long rcu_seq_snap(unsigned long *sp)
 {
 	unsigned long s;