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, 12 Dec 2008 06:11:11 +0100
From:	Eric Dumazet <dada1@...mosbay.com>
To:	Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@...oo.com.au>
CC:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	"kernel-testers@...r.kernel.org >> Kernel Testers List" 
	<kernel-testers@...r.kernel.org>, Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>,
	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
	Linux Netdev List <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux-foundation.org>,
	linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/7] fs: Use a percpu_counter to track nr_inodes

Nick Piggin a écrit :
> On Friday 12 December 2008 09:39, Eric Dumazet wrote:
>> Avoids cache line ping pongs between cpus and prepare next patch,
>> because updates of nr_inodes dont need inode_lock anymore.
>>
>> (socket8 bench result : no difference at this point)
> 
> Looks good.
> 
> But.... If we never actually need fast access to the approximate
> total, (which seems to apply to this and the previous patch) we
> could use something much simpler which does not have the spinlock
> or all this batching stuff that percpu counters have. I'd prefer
> that because it will be faster in a straight line...

Well, using a non batching mode could be real easy, just
call __percpu_counter_add(&counter, inc, 1<<30);

Or define a new percpu_counter_fastadd(&counter, inc);

percpu_counter are nice because handle the CPU hotplug problem,
if we want to use for_each_online_cpu() instead of
for_each_possible_cpu().

> 
> (BTW. percpu counters can't be used in interrupt context? That's
> nice.)
> 
> 

Not sure why you said this.

I would like to have a irqsafe percpu_counter, I was preparing such a
patch because we need it for net-next



--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Powered by blists - more mailing lists