linux-kernel - Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 00/10] [PATCH RFC V2] Paravirtualized ticketlocks

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:	Thu, 6 Oct 2011 16:04:13 +0200
From:	Stephan Diestelhorst <stephan.diestelhorst@....com>
To:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
CC:	Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Jan Beulich <JBeulich@...e.com>,
	Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy.fitzhardinge@...rix.com>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Nick Piggin <npiggin@...nel.dk>,
	the arch/x86 maintainers <x86@...nel.org>,
	"xen-devel@...ts.xensource.com" <xen-devel@...ts.xensource.com>,
	Avi Kivity <avi@...hat.com>,
	Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@...hat.com>,
	KVM <kvm@...r.kernel.org>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 00/10] [PATCH RFC V2] Paravirtualized ticketlocks

On Wednesday 28 September 2011, 14:49:56 Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 11:08 AM, Stephan Diestelhorst
> <stephan.diestelhorst@....com> wrote:
> >
> > I must have missed the part when this turned into the propose-the-
> > craziest-way-that-this-still-works.contest :)
> 
> So doing it just with the "lock addb" probably works fine, but I have
> to say that I personally shudder at the "surround the locked addb by
> reads from the word, in order to approximate an atomic read of the
> upper bits".
> 
> Because what you get is not really an "atomic read of the upper bits",
> it's a "ok, we'll get the worst case of somebody modifying the upper
> bits at the same time".
> 
> Which certainly should *work*, but from a conceptual standpoint, isn't
> it just *much* nicer to say "we actually know *exactly* what the upper
> bits were".

Well, we really do NOT want atomicity here. What we really rather want
is sequentiality: free the lock, make the update visible, and THEN
check if someone has gone sleeping on it.

Atomicity only conveniently enforces that the three do not happen in a
different order (with the store becoming visible after the checking
load).

This does not have to be atomic, since spurious wakeups are not a
problem, in particular not with the FIFO-ness of ticket locks.

For that the fence, additional atomic etc. would be IMHO much cleaner
than the crazy overflow logic.

> But I don't care all *that* deeply. I do agree that the xaddw trick is
> pretty tricky. I just happen to think that it's actually *less* tricky
> than "read the upper bits separately and depend on subtle ordering
> issues with another writer that happens at the same time on another
> CPU".

Fair enough :)

Stephan
-- 
Stephan Diestelhorst, AMD Operating System Research Center
stephan.diestelhorst@....com
Tel. +49 (0)351 448 356 719

Advanced Micro Devices GmbH
Einsteinring 24
85609 Aschheim
Germany

Geschaeftsfuehrer: Alberto Bozzo
Sitz: Dornach, Gemeinde Aschheim, Landkreis Muenchen
Registergericht Muenchen, HRB Nr. 43632, WEEE-Reg-Nr: DE 12919551


--
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/