[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <YoNx9w1QocBY/P0I@zx2c4.com>
Date: Tue, 17 May 2022 11:59:19 +0200
From: "Jason A. Donenfeld" <Jason@...c4.com>
To: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>,
Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>,
Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] locking/lockdep: Use sched_clock() for random numbers.
On Tue, May 17, 2022 at 11:53:43AM +0200, Jason A. Donenfeld wrote:
> Hi Sebastian,
>
> Interesting RT consideration. I hope there aren't too many of these
> special cases that would necessitate a general mechanism. Fingers
> crossed this is the only one.
>
> On Tue, May 17, 2022 at 11:16:14AM +0200, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> > - cookie.val = 1 + (prandom_u32() >> 16);
> > + cookie.val = 1 + (sched_clock() & 0xffff);
> > hlock->pin_count += cookie.val;
>
> I have no idea what the requirements here are. What would happen if you
> just did atomic_inc_return(&some_global) instead? That'd be faster
> anyhow, and it's not like 16 bits gives you much variance anyway...
Also, what is that `1 +` doing there? If the intention is to make sure
this is non-zero, you might want the mask to be 0xfffe? Or you're
counting on the assigned type being a u32 so it all overflows into the
next zone the way you want it? Kinda weird.
Jason
Powered by blists - more mailing lists