netdev - Re: [PATCH] ppp: add 64 bit stats

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <1343227809.2626.11159.camel@edumazet-glaptop>
Date:	Wed, 25 Jul 2012 16:50:09 +0200
From:	Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
To:	Kevin Groeneveld <kgroeneveld@...il.com>
Cc:	netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ppp: add 64 bit stats

On Wed, 2012-07-25 at 10:43 -0400, Kevin Groeneveld wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 12:04 AM, Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com> wrote:
> > It there are spinlocks already, why even adding u64_stats_sync ?
> 
> That is a good question I have already wondered about myself.
> 
> >include/linux/u64_stats_sync.h
> >
> >* 3) Write side must ensure mutual exclusion or one seqcount update could
> > *    be lost, thus blocking readers forever.
> > *    If this synchronization point is not a mutex, but a spinlock or
> > *    spinlock_bh() or disable_bh() :
> 
> It seems the u64_stats_sync requires some form of mutual exclusion.
> So why bother ever using it at all?  Maybe there are cases where the
> required mutual exclusion can be cheaper than a spinlock?  Maybe it is
> just to avoid the spinlocks on the read side of things?
> 
> I hope you don't mind all my questions...

u64_stats_sync is good for write sides without any locking,
for example using percpu data.

So if you use shared counters, u64_stats_sync has no value.


--
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