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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <CAJFZqHzWa=gB8b653KgmGZTpNv83KhAZ3VBYvd+VjchmCkiCbQ@mail.gmail.com> Date: Tue, 9 Sep 2014 08:29:56 +0800 From: Li RongQing <roy.qing.li@...il.com> To: Pravin Shelar <pshelar@...ira.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 Tue, Sep 9, 2014 at 6:26 AM, Pravin Shelar <pshelar@...ira.com> wrote: > 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? 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. -Roy -- 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
Powered by blists - more mailing lists