linux-kernel - RE: [PATCH 4/5] kgdb: Use atomic operators which use barriers

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>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Thu, 8 Apr 2010 07:55:12 -0700 (PDT)
From:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>
cc:	Jason Wessel <jason.wessel@...driver.com>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	kgdb-bugreport@...ts.sourceforge.net,
	Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@....linux.org.uk>
Subject: RE: [PATCH 4/5] kgdb: Use atomic operators which use barriers

On Thu, 8 Apr 2010, Will Deacon wrote:
> 
> I simply used smp_mb() as a way to solve this ARM-specific problem. I think
> Russell objects to this largely because this problem affects a particular
> scenario of busy-wait loops and changing the definition of cpu_relax() adds
> barriers to code that doesn't necessarily require them.

How expensive is a smp_mb() on arm?

And by "expensive" I don't mean so much performance of the instruction 
itself (after all, we _are_ just busy-looping), but more about things like 
power and perhaps secondary effects (does it cause memory traffic, for 
example?).

Also, I have to say that _usually_ the problem with non-timely cache 
updates in not on the reading side, but on the writing side - ie the other 
CPU may be buffering writes indefinitely and the writes will go out only 
as a response to bus cycles or the write buffers filling up. In which case 
the reader can't really do much about it.

But your comment for the "smp_mb()" patch seems to imply that it's 
literally a matter of cache access priorities:

 "On the ARM11MPCore processor [where loads are prioritised over stores], 
  spinning in such a loop will prevent the write buffer from draining."

and in that case I would say that the correct thing _definitely_ is to 
make sure that the loop simply is never so tight that. Maybe you can do 
that without an smp_mb(), by just making whatever "cpu_relax()" does slow 
enough (something that stalls the pipeline or whatever?)

But if smp_mb() is cheap, then that sounds like the right solution.

			Linus
--
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/