netdev - Re: [PATCH v3 2/2] decrement static keys on real destroy time

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: <CAOS58YOKUq7GTTZRcw19dth+HgThoNTEcqBKeNO0ftB4rFJ97A@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Thu, 26 Apr 2012 15:22:33 -0700
From:	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To:	Glauber Costa <glommer@...allels.com>
Cc:	cgroups@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	Li Zefan <lizefan@...wei.com>, kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com,
	linux-mm@...ck.org, devel@...nvz.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/2] decrement static keys on real destroy time

Hello,

On Thu, Apr 26, 2012 at 3:17 PM, Glauber Costa <glommer@...allels.com> wrote:
>
>> No, what I mean is that why can't you do about the same mutexed
>> activated inside static_key API function instead of requiring every
>> user to worry about the function returning asynchronously.
>> ie. synchronize inside static_key API instead of in the callers.
>>
>
> Like this?

Yeah, something like that.  If keeping the inc operation a single
atomic op is important for performance or whatever reasons, you can
play some trick with large negative bias value while activation is
going on and use atomic_add_return() to determine both whether it's
the first incrementer and someone else is in the process of
activating.

Thanks.

-- 
tejun
--
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