Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <YfgPWatDzkn2ozhm@linutronix.de> <20220204153149.51428-1-Jason@zx2c4.com>
 <Yf2Q25T04cAxJY3H@linutronix.de> <Yf320i+tVl6MXnD7@sultan-box.localdomain>
In-Reply-To: <Yf320i+tVl6MXnD7@sultan-box.localdomain>
From:   "Jason A. Donenfeld" <Jason@zx2c4.com>
Date:   Sat, 5 Feb 2022 13:50:42 +0100
Message-ID: <CAHmME9q1bdSeX5Eu+sNfJkch+odKTWFZ53Jo-ma98SDqouEF6w@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC v1] random: do not take spinlocks in irq handler
To:     Sultan Alsawaf <sultan@kerneltoast.com>
Cc:     Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        "Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@mit.edu>,
        =?UTF-8?Q?Jonathan_Neusch=C3=A4fer?= <j.neuschaefer@gmx.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

Hi Sultan,

On Sat, Feb 5, 2022 at 5:02 AM Sultan Alsawaf <sultan@kerneltoast.com> wrote:
> The __this_cpu_{ATOMIC_OP}() functions are for atomically performing a single
> per-CPU operation for the current CPU from contexts that permit CPU migration.
> Since this code is safe from CPU migrations (add_interrupt_randomness() runs in
> hardirq context), the atomic per-CPU helpers are unneeded. Instead of using
> __this_cpu_inc_return() and __this_cpu_or(), we can operate on the per-CPU
> pointer directly without any extra safety (e.g., `++fast_pool->count` can be
> used in place of `__this_cpu_inc_return(irq_randomness.count)`).

Oh, right, thanks. We're already in irq so we don't have to worried
about load,add,store being cut up in any way. I'll go back to simple
increments for v3.

Jason