linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v8 4/4] qrwlock: Use smp_store_release() in write

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, 21 Jan 2014 10:02:06 -0500
From:	Waiman Long <waiman.long@...com>
To:	paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com
CC:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Matt Turner <mattst88@...il.com>,
	Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Ivan Kokshaysky <ink@...assic.park.msu.ru>,
	Daniel J Blueman <daniel@...ascale.com>,
	Richard Henderson <rth@...ddle.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v8 4/4] qrwlock: Use smp_store_release() in write_unlock()

On 01/19/2014 03:04 AM, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 18, 2014 at 04:57:05PM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>> On Sat, Jan 18, 2014 at 1:22 PM, Paul E. McKenney
>> <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>  wrote:
>>> Yes, this requires that -all- updates to the fields in the machine word
>>> in question use atomic rmw.  Which would not be pretty from a core-code
>>> perspective.  Hence my suggestion of ceasing Linux-kernel support for
>>> DEC Alpha CPUs that don't support byte operations.  Also need 16-bit
>>> operations as well, of course...
>> I'm not seeing this.
>>
>> Why the hell would you have byte- or halfword-sized versions of the
>> store_release or load_acquire things on alpha anyway?
>>
>> What it means is that data structures that do locking or atomics need
>> to be "int" or "long" on alpha.  That has always been true. What do
>> you claim has changed?
> OK, another approach would be to never add "select ARCH_USE_QUEUE_RWLOCK"
> on Alpha, at least if the queued rwlocks really do want to atomically
> manipulate bytes.  After all, the Alpha systems that I know about don't
> have enough CPUs to make queued rwlocks necessary anyway.
>
> Much simpler solution!
>
> Is this what you were getting at, or am I missing your point?
>
> 							Thanx, Paul
>

My latest v9 series of qrwlock patch will automatically adapt to the 
lack of atomic byte access by using an atomic integer instruction 
instead. So the new series should work for pre-EV56 Alpha, it is just a 
bit less efficient in this case.

-Longman
--
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/