linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH RFC tip/core/rcu] rcu: direct algorithmic SRCU implementation

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, 16 Feb 2012 09:52:33 -0500
From:	Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>
To:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Mathieu Desnoyers <compudj@...stal.dyndns.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, mingo@...e.hu, laijs@...fujitsu.com,
	dipankar@...ibm.com, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
	josh@...htriplett.org, niv@...ibm.com, tglx@...utronix.de,
	rostedt@...dmis.org, Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu, dhowells@...hat.com,
	eric.dumazet@...il.com, darren@...art.com, fweisbec@...il.com,
	patches@...aro.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC tip/core/rcu] rcu: direct algorithmic SRCU
	implementation

* Peter Zijlstra (peterz@...radead.org) wrote:
> On Thu, 2012-02-16 at 07:18 -0500, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
> > 
> > Hrm, I think we'd need a little more than just lock/unlock ordering
> > guarantees. Let's consider the following, where the stores would be
> > expected to be seen as "store A before store B" by CPU 2
> > 
> > CPU 0             CPU 1               CPU 2
> > 
> >                                       load B, smp_rmb, load A in loop,
> >                                       expecting that when updated A is
> >                                       observed, B is always observed as
> >                                       updated too.
> > store A
> > (lock is permeable:
> > outside can leak
> > inside)
> > lock(rq->lock)
> > 
> >       -> migration ->
> > 
> >                   unlock(rq->lock)
> >                   (lock is permeable:
> >                   outside can leak inside)
> >                   store B
> 
> You got the pairing the wrong way around, I suggested:
> 
>   store A
> 
>   switch-out
>     UNLOCK
> 
>   	-> migration ->
> 
> 			switch-in
> 			  LOCK
> 
> 			store B
> 
> While both LOCK and UNLOCK are semi-permeable, A won't pass the UNLOCK
> and B won't pass the LOCK.
> 
> Yes, A can pass switch-out LOCK, but that doesn't matter much since the
> switch-in cannot happen until we've passed UNLOCK.
> 
> And yes B can pass switch-in UNLOCK, but again, I can't see that being a
> problem since the LOCK will avoid it being visible before A.

Ah, so this is what I missed: the context switch has its lock/unlock
pair, the following migration is performed under its own lock/unlock
pair, and the following context switch also has its lock/unlock pair. So
yes, this should be sufficient to act as a full memory barrier.

> 
> > Does that make sense, or should I get my first morning coffee ? :) 
> 
> Probably.. but that's not saying I'm not wrong ;-)

It does pass my 1st morning coffee test still, so it looks good, at
least to me. :-)

Back to the initial subject: I think it would be important for general
code understanding that when RCU operates tricks on per-cpu variables
based on scheduler migration memory ordering assumption, that it tells
so explicitely, rather than claiming that the memory barriers match
those at RCU read lock/unlock sites, which is not quite right.

Thanks,

Mathieu

-- 
Mathieu Desnoyers
Operating System Efficiency R&D Consultant
EfficiOS Inc.
http://www.efficios.com
--
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/