linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH -v5][RFC]: mutex: implement adaptive spinning

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]

Date:	Wed, 7 Jan 2009 13:35:35 -0800
From:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
Cc:	torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, peterz@...radead.org,
	paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, ghaskins@...ell.com, mingo@...e.hu,
	matthew@....cx, andi@...stfloor.org, chris.mason@...cle.com,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-btrfs@...r.kernel.org, tglx@...utronix.de,
	rostedt@...dmis.org, npiggin@...e.de, pmorreale@...ell.com,
	SDietrich@...ell.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH -v5][RFC]: mutex: implement adaptive spinning

On Wed, 7 Jan 2009 22:37:40 +0100
Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org> wrote:

> > But we can do that with __get_user(thread_info->cpu) (very unlikely page 
> > fault protection due to the possibility of CONFIG_DEBUG_PAGEALLOC) and 
> > then validating the cpu. It it's in range, we can use it and verify 
> > whether cpu_rq(cpu)->curr has that thread_info.
> > 
> > So we can do all that locklessly and optimistically, just going back and 
> > verifying the results later. This is why "thread_info" is actually a 
> > better thing to use than "task_struct" - we can look up the cpu in it with 
> > a simple dereference. We knew the pointer _used_ to be valid, so in any 
> > normal situation, it will never page fault (and if you have 
> > CONFIG_DEBUG_PAGEALLOC and hit a very unlucky race, then performance isn't 
> > your concern anyway: we just need to make the page fault be non-lethal ;)
> 
> The problem with probe_kernel_address() is that it does lots of
> operations around the access in the hot path (set_fs, pagefault_disable etc.), 
> so i'm not sure that's a good idea. 

probe_kernel_address() isn't tooooo bad - a few reads and writes into
the task_struct and thread_struct.  And we're on the slow, contended
path here anyway..
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/