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  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:   Fri, 8 Feb 2019 14:32:55 -0800
From:   Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To:     Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Cc:     LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>,
        Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>,
        Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@...il.com>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
        linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, Davidlohr Bueso <dave@...olabs.net>,
        Miklos Szeredi <miklos@...redi.hu>,
        Daniel Colascione <dancol@...gle.com>,
        Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>,
        Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>,
        Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@....com>
Subject: Re: [patch V2 1/2] genriq: Avoid summation loops for /proc/stat

On Fri, 08 Feb 2019 14:48:03 +0100 Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de> wrote:

> Waiman reported that on large systems with a large amount of interrupts the
> readout of /proc/stat takes a long time to sum up the interrupt
> statistics. In principle this is not a problem. but for unknown reasons
> some enterprise quality software reads /proc/stat with a high frequency.
> 
> The reason for this is that interrupt statistics are accounted per cpu. So
> the /proc/stat logic has to sum up the interrupt stats for each interrupt.
> 
> This can be largely avoided for interrupts which are not marked as
> 'PER_CPU' interrupts by simply adding a per interrupt summation counter
> which is incremented along with the per interrupt per cpu counter.
> 
> The PER_CPU interrupts need to avoid that and use only per cpu accounting
> because they share the interrupt number and the interrupt descriptor and
> concurrent updates would conflict or require unwanted synchronization.
> 
> ...
>
> --- a/include/linux/irqdesc.h
> +++ b/include/linux/irqdesc.h
> @@ -65,6 +65,7 @@ struct irq_desc {
>  	unsigned int		core_internal_state__do_not_mess_with_it;
>  	unsigned int		depth;		/* nested irq disables */
>  	unsigned int		wake_depth;	/* nested wake enables */
> +	unsigned int		tot_count;

Confused.  Isn't this going to quickly overflow?


Powered by blists - more mailing lists