linux-kernel - Re: [fget] 054aa8d439: will-it-scale.per_thread

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]

Date:   Fri, 10 Dec 2021 17:01:58 -0800
From:   Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To:     Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>
Cc:     kernel test robot <oliver.sang@...el.com>,
        Miklos Szeredi <mszeredi@...hat.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, lkp@...ts.01.org,
        kernel test robot <lkp@...el.com>,
        "Huang, Ying" <ying.huang@...el.com>,
        Feng Tang <feng.tang@...el.com>,
        Zhengjun Xing <zhengjun.xing@...ux.intel.com>,
        fengwei.yin@...el.com
Subject: Re: [fget] 054aa8d439: will-it-scale.per_thread_ops -5.7% regression

On Fri, Dec 10, 2021 at 3:30 PM Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com> wrote:
>
> One nit: The original implementation is using rcu_dereference_raw()
> because it can run in different contexts, but here plain
> rcu_dereference() would probably be more appropriate?

Well, I actually did that somewhat on purpose.

The RCU locking is right there, so doing the checking seems pointless.

That's particularly true since the whole point of the patch was "this
is truly critical, let's rewrite it to generate basically perfect
code"..

                 Linus