linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v9 2/7] rcu/segcblist: Add counters to segcblist datastructure

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: <20201110013949.GA16363@paulmck-ThinkPad-P72>
Date:   Mon, 9 Nov 2020 17:39:49 -0800
From:   "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>
To:     Joel Fernandes <joel@...lfernandes.org>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@...nel.org>,
        Josh Triplett <josh@...htriplett.org>,
        Lai Jiangshan <jiangshanlai@...il.com>,
        Marco Elver <elver@...gle.com>,
        Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>,
        rcu@...r.kernel.org, Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
        "Uladzislau Rezki (Sony)" <urezki@...il.com>, fweisbec@...il.com,
        neeraj.iitr10@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v9 2/7] rcu/segcblist: Add counters to segcblist
 datastructure

On Fri, Nov 06, 2020 at 04:48:15PM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 06, 2020 at 07:18:47PM -0500, Joel Fernandes wrote:
> > On Fri, Nov 06, 2020 at 07:01:57PM -0500, Joel Fernandes wrote:
> > > On Wed, Nov 04, 2020 at 09:01:33AM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > 
> > > > A casual reader might be forgiven for being confused by the combination
> > > > of "Return" in the above comment and the "void" function type below.
> > > > So shouldn't this comment be something like "Add the specified number
> > > > of callbacks to the specified segment..."?
> > > 
> > > You are right, sorry and will fix it.
> > > 
> > > > > @@ -330,11 +342,16 @@ void rcu_segcblist_extract_pend_cbs(struct rcu_segcblist *rsclp,
> > > > >  
> > > > >  	if (!rcu_segcblist_pend_cbs(rsclp))
> > > > >  		return; /* Nothing to do. */
> > > > > +	rclp->len = rcu_segcblist_get_seglen(rsclp, RCU_WAIT_TAIL) +
> > > > > +		    rcu_segcblist_get_seglen(rsclp, RCU_NEXT_READY_TAIL) +
> > > > > +		    rcu_segcblist_get_seglen(rsclp, RCU_NEXT_TAIL);
> > > > 
> > > > This should be a "for" loop.  Yes, the number and names of the segments
> > > > hasn't changed for a good long time, but nothing like code as above to
> > > > inspire Murphy to more mischief.  :-/
> > > > 
> > > > Actually, why not put the summation in the existing "for" loop below?
> > > > That would save a line of code in addition to providing less inspiration
> > > > for Mr. Murphy.
> > > 
> > > I can do that. Actually Frederic suggested the same thing but I was reluctant
> > > as I felt it did not give much LOC benefit. Will revisit it.
> > 
> > It reduces 1 line of code :) I changed it to the below, will update the patch:
> 
> Thank you!  And yes, I am much more concerned about the constraints on
> Mr. Murphy than on the lines of code.  ;-)

And I have pulled in the updated commit, thank you all!

							Thanx, Paul

> > ---8<-----------------------
> > 
> > diff --git a/kernel/rcu/rcu_segcblist.c b/kernel/rcu/rcu_segcblist.c
> > index 9b43d686b1f3..bff9b2253e50 100644
> > --- a/kernel/rcu/rcu_segcblist.c
> > +++ b/kernel/rcu/rcu_segcblist.c
> > @@ -101,7 +101,7 @@ static void rcu_segcblist_set_seglen(struct rcu_segcblist *rsclp, int seg, long
> >  	WRITE_ONCE(rsclp->seglen[seg], v);
> >  }
> >  
> > -/* Return number of callbacks in a segment of the segmented callback list. */
> > +/* Increase the numeric length of a segment by a specified amount. */
> >  static void rcu_segcblist_add_seglen(struct rcu_segcblist *rsclp, int seg, long v)
> >  {
> >  	WRITE_ONCE(rsclp->seglen[seg], rsclp->seglen[seg] + v);
> > @@ -406,13 +406,12 @@ void rcu_segcblist_extract_pend_cbs(struct rcu_segcblist *rsclp,
> >  
> >  	if (!rcu_segcblist_pend_cbs(rsclp))
> >  		return; /* Nothing to do. */
> > -	rclp->len = rcu_segcblist_get_seglen(rsclp, RCU_WAIT_TAIL) +
> > -		    rcu_segcblist_get_seglen(rsclp, RCU_NEXT_READY_TAIL) +
> > -		    rcu_segcblist_get_seglen(rsclp, RCU_NEXT_TAIL);
> > +	rclp->len = 0;
> >  	*rclp->tail = *rsclp->tails[RCU_DONE_TAIL];
> >  	rclp->tail = rsclp->tails[RCU_NEXT_TAIL];
> >  	WRITE_ONCE(*rsclp->tails[RCU_DONE_TAIL], NULL);
> >  	for (i = RCU_DONE_TAIL + 1; i < RCU_CBLIST_NSEGS; i++) {
> > +		rclp->len += rcu_segcblist_get_seglen(rsclp, i);
> >  		WRITE_ONCE(rsclp->tails[i], rsclp->tails[RCU_DONE_TAIL]);
> >  		rcu_segcblist_set_seglen(rsclp, i, 0);
> >  	}