Hello,
On Thu, Sep 08, 2022 at 08:38:59AM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Thu, 8 Sep 2022 16:25:47 +0800 "Sun, Jiebin" <jiebin.sun@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > In our case, if the local
> > percpu counter is near to INT_MAX and there comes a big msgsz, the
> > overflow issue could happen.
>
> percpu_counter_add_batch() handles this - your big message
> won't overflow an s64.
>
>
> Lookng at percpu_counter_add_batch(), is this tweak right?
>
> - don't need to update *fbc->counters inside the lock
> - that __this_cpu_sub() is an obscure way of zeroing the thing
>
> --- a/lib/percpu_counter.c~a
> +++ a/lib/percpu_counter.c
> @@ -89,8 +89,8 @@ void percpu_counter_add_batch(struct per
> unsigned long flags;
> raw_spin_lock_irqsave(&fbc->lock, flags);
> fbc->count += count;
> - __this_cpu_sub(*fbc->counters, count - amount);
> raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&fbc->lock, flags);
> + __this_cpu_write(*fbc->counters, 0);
I don't think this is irq safe. It'd be best to leave it inside the
spinlock as then we can use __this_cpu_write() to 0 in there.
> } else {
> this_cpu_add(*fbc->counters, amount);
> }
> _
>
Thanks,
Dennis
