linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 7/4] ipc: fine grained locking for semtimedop

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, 06 Mar 2013 18:09:38 -0500
From:	Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>
To:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
CC:	Davidlohr Bueso <davidlohr.bueso@...com>,
	Emmanuel Benisty <benisty.e@...il.com>,
	"Vinod, Chegu" <chegu_vinod@...com>,
	"Low, Jason" <jason.low2@...com>,
	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, aquini@...hat.com,
	Michel Lespinasse <walken@...gle.com>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
	Larry Woodman <lwoodman@...hat.com>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, hhuang@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 7/4] ipc: fine grained locking for semtimedop

On 03/06/2013 05:57 PM, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 6, 2013 at 5:15 PM, Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com> wrote:
>>
>> If the call is a semop manipulating just one semaphore in
>> an array with multiple semaphores, the read/write lock for
>> the semaphore array is taken in shared (read) mode, and the
>> individual semaphore's lock is taken.
>
> You know, we do something like this already elsewhere, and I think we
> do it slightly better. See the mm_take_all_locks() logic in mm/mmap.c.

That would work. If we are about to do one of the uncommon operations,or 
sma->complex_count is set, we need to take the outer lock and all of the
inner locks.

The only complication would be interactions with the non-semaphore code
in ipc/util.c, which manipulates the kern_ipc_perm structures, which are
part of the sem_array structure.

> That said, judging by your numbers, your read-write lock seems to work
> fine too, even though I'd worry about cacheline ping-pong (but not
> contention) on the readers. So it doesn't seem optimal, but it sure as
> hell seems better than what we do now ;)

I can take a stab at implementing the take_all_locks approach tomorrow.

If things turn out to be easier than I fear, I will send an updated
patch.  If the resulting changes to the rest of ipc/ turn out to be
too ugly to live, the rwsem performance is likely to be good enough
for a while, and I'll just send an email without a patch :)
--
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/