linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH RFC ticketlock] v2 Auto-queued ticketlock

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:	Tue, 11 Jun 2013 10:52:53 -0700
From:	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, mingo@...e.hu, laijs@...fujitsu.com,
	dipankar@...ibm.com, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
	mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com, josh@...htriplett.org,
	niv@...ibm.com, tglx@...utronix.de, peterz@...radead.org,
	Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu, dhowells@...hat.com, edumazet@...gle.com,
	darren@...art.com, fweisbec@...il.com, sbw@....edu,
	torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, walken@...gle.com,
	waiman.long@...com
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC ticketlock] v2 Auto-queued ticketlock

On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 01:36:27PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Tue, 2013-06-11 at 10:02 -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> 
> > +#ifdef CONFIG_TICKET_LOCK_QUEUED
> > +
> > +#define __TKT_SPIN_INC 2
> > +bool tkt_spin_pass(arch_spinlock_t *ap, struct __raw_tickets inc);
> > +
> > +#else /* #ifdef CONFIG_TICKET_LOCK_QUEUED */
> > +
> > +#define __TKT_SPIN_INC 1
> > +static inline bool tkt_spin_pass(arch_spinlock_t *ap, struct __raw_tickets inc)
> > +{
> > +	return false;
> > +}
> > +
> > +#endif /* #else #ifdef CONFIG_TICKET_LOCK_QUEUED */
> > +
> >  /*
> >   * Ticket locks are conceptually two parts, one indicating the current head of
> >   * the queue, and the other indicating the current tail. The lock is acquired
> > @@ -49,17 +64,15 @@
> >   */
> >  static __always_inline void __ticket_spin_lock(arch_spinlock_t *lock)
> >  {
> > -	register struct __raw_tickets inc = { .tail = 1 };
> > +	register struct __raw_tickets inc = { .tail = __TKT_SPIN_INC };
> >  
> >  	inc = xadd(&lock->tickets, inc);
> > -
> >  	for (;;) {
> > -		if (inc.head == inc.tail)
> > +		if (inc.head == inc.tail || tkt_spin_pass(lock, inc))
> >  			break;
> > -		cpu_relax();
> 
> Overheating the CPU are we ;-)
> 
> Keeping the cpu_relax() doesn't hurt, even when TICKET_LOCK_QUEUE is
> enabled. As the only latency to worry about is when tkt_spin_pass()
> returns true, where it breaks out of the loop anyway.
> 
> But if you really don't want the double call to cpu_relax(), we can
> probably remove the cpu_relax from tkt_spin_pass() and keep this one, or
> in the above tkt_spin_pass() where TICK_LOCK_QUEUED is not set, we can
> do:
> 
> static inline bool tkt_spin_pass(arch_spinlock_t *ap, struct
> __raw_tickets inc)
> {
> 	cpu_relax();
> 	return false;
> }
> 
> Honesty, I would say remove it from tkt_spin_pass() when returning
> false.

Sold!  I moved the cpu_relax() from tkt_spin_pass()'s false return to
the spin loop in __ticket_spin_lock().  Misguided attempt on my part to
minimize __ticket_spin_lock()'s size.

							Thanx, Paul

> -- Steve
> 
> 
> >  		inc.head = ACCESS_ONCE(lock->tickets.head);
> >  	}
> > -	barrier();		/* make sure nothing creeps before the lock is taken */
> > +	barrier(); /* Make sure nothing creeps in before the lock is taken. */
> >  }
> >  
> 
> 

--
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/