netdev - Re: [PATCH 4/9] net: openvswitch: use this_cpu

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: <509249C7.3080000@gmail.com>
Date:	Thu, 01 Nov 2012 18:07:03 +0800
From:	Shan Wei <shanwei88@...il.com>
To:	Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>
CC:	jesse@...ira.com, dev@...nvswitch.org,
	NetDev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	Kernel-Maillist <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/9] net: openvswitch: use this_cpu_ptr per-cpu helper

Christoph Lameter said, at 2012/11/1 1:39:
> On Wed, 31 Oct 2012, Shan Wei wrote:
> 
>> --- a/net/openvswitch/datapath.c
>> +++ b/net/openvswitch/datapath.c
>> @@ -208,7 +208,7 @@ void ovs_dp_process_received_packet(struct vport *p, struct sk_buff *skb)
>>  	int error;
>>  	int key_len;
>>
>> -	stats = per_cpu_ptr(dp->stats_percpu, smp_processor_id());
>> +	stats = this_cpu_ptr(dp->stats_percpu);
> 
> Well this is an improvement and may be ok if the preemption is disabled at
> this point. There is another possibility here to use this_cpu_read/add/inc
> instead of determining the pointer to the local cpu first and then
> performing operations on the fields. The pointer relocation with
> this_cpu_xxx ops is implicit in the instructions and safe against changing
> of processors. It would also save us the determination of a pointer to the
> current cpus stats structure.

yes, this_cpu_ptr just locate the point to current cpu per-cpu data domain.
and then operating [read/write/inc/sub] fields of this per-cpu variable
maybe on other cpu because task is rescheduled for preemption, interrupt.

But for different field in same per-cpu variable, how to guarantee n_missed
and n_hit are from same cpu? 
this_cpu_read(dp->stats_percpu->n_missed);
[processor changed]
this_cpu_read(dp->stats_percpu->n_hit);


In addition, following usage of per_cpu_ptr can be replaced by this_cpu_read.

cpu=get_cpu()
....
*per_cpu_ptr(p,cpu)
....
....
put_cpu()

--
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