linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v10 06/19] qspinlock: prolong the stay in the pending bit path

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:	Sat, 10 May 2014 15:38:29 +0200
From:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:	Waiman Long <waiman.long@...com>
Cc:	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org,
	x86@...nel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
	xen-devel@...ts.xenproject.org, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
	Paolo Bonzini <paolo.bonzini@...il.com>,
	Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@...cle.com>,
	Boris Ostrovsky <boris.ostrovsky@...cle.com>,
	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Raghavendra K T <raghavendra.kt@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	David Vrabel <david.vrabel@...rix.com>,
	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
	Gleb Natapov <gleb@...hat.com>,
	Scott J Norton <scott.norton@...com>,
	Chegu Vinod <chegu_vinod@...com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v10 06/19] qspinlock: prolong the stay in the pending bit
 path

On Fri, May 09, 2014 at 08:58:47PM -0400, Waiman Long wrote:
> On 05/08/2014 02:58 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> >On Wed, May 07, 2014 at 11:01:34AM -0400, Waiman Long wrote:
> >>@@ -221,11 +222,37 @@ static inline int trylock_pending(struct qspinlock *lock, u32 *pval)
> >>  	 */
> >>  	for (;;) {
> >>  		/*
> >>-		 * If we observe any contention; queue.
> >>+		 * If we observe that the queue is not empty,
> >>+		 * return and be queued.
> >>  		 */
> >>-		if (val&  ~_Q_LOCKED_MASK)
> >>+		if (val&  _Q_TAIL_MASK)
> >>  			return 0;
> >>
> >>+		if (val == (_Q_LOCKED_VAL|_Q_PENDING_VAL)) {
> >>+			/*
> >>+			 * If both the lock and pending bits are set, we wait
> >>+			 * a while to see if that either bit will be cleared.
> >>+			 * If that is no change, we return and be queued.
> >>+			 */
> >>+			if (!retry)
> >>+				return 0;
> >>+			retry--;
> >>+			cpu_relax();
> >>+			cpu_relax();
> >>+			*pval = val = atomic_read(&lock->val);
> >>+			continue;
> >>+		} else if (val == _Q_PENDING_VAL) {
> >>+			/*
> >>+			 * Pending bit is set, but not the lock bit.
> >>+			 * Assuming that the pending bit holder is going to
> >>+			 * set the lock bit and clear the pending bit soon,
> >>+			 * it is better to wait than to exit at this point.
> >>+			 */
> >>+			cpu_relax();
> >>+			*pval = val = atomic_read(&lock->val);
> >>+			continue;
> >>+		}
> >Didn't I give a much saner alternative to this mess last time?
> 
> I don't recall you have any suggestion last time. Anyway, if you think the
> code is too messy, I think I can give up the first if statement which is
> more an optimistic spinning kind of code for short critical section. The 2nd
> if statement is still need to improve chance of using this code path due to
> timing reason. I will rerun my performance test to make sure it won't have
> too much performance impact.

lkml.kernel.org/r/20140417163640.GT11096@...ns.programming.kicks-ass.net

Content of type "application/pgp-signature" skipped