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  PHC 
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:	Tue, 9 Sep 2014 08:29:56 +0800
From:	Li RongQing <>
To:	Pravin Shelar <>
Cc:	netdev <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH][net-next] openvswitch: change the data type of error
 status to atomic_long_t

On Tue, Sep 9, 2014 at 6:26 AM, Pravin Shelar <> wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 7, 2014 at 2:24 AM, Li RongQing <> wrote:
>> On Sun, Sep 7, 2014 at 11:44 AM, Pravin Shelar <> 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?

I have no performance number, and did not know how to get the performance
number, since I did not know how to trigger the error packet continually.

But I think  atomic is suitable for this condition, it maybe
over-skill to use a spin
lock to protect a single variable, and using atomic can save a spin lock space.

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at

Powered by blists - more mailing lists