netdev - Re: [PATCH][net-next] openvswitch: change the data type of error status to atomic_long

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: <CALnjE+pTVVr3dQTnUZqB4vQ=MjhyJ1C859Rkjmf7JOGzVVsb5w@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Mon, 8 Sep 2014 15:26:13 -0700
From:	Pravin Shelar <pshelar@...ira.com>
To:	Li RongQing <roy.qing.li@...il.com>
Cc:	netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH][net-next] openvswitch: change the data type of error
 status to atomic_long_t

On Sun, Sep 7, 2014 at 2:24 AM, Li RongQing <roy.qing.li@...il.com> wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 7, 2014 at 11:44 AM, Pravin Shelar <pshelar@...ira.com> wrote:
>>> The operation of atomic maybe faster than spin lock.
>>
>> What is reason for this change?
>
> 1.  The operation of atomic maybe faster than spin lock
> 2.  I did not find that tx_dropped/tx_error/.. is protected by spin
> lock under net dir,
> sometime tx_dropped is atomic_long_t; sometime it is percpu variable;
> sometime it is
> u64,but does not need to protect.
>

These are error counter and the access is not performance sensitive
code. So I do not see obvious need to optimize it. Do you have any
performance number for this patch?
--
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