linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 10/11] perf/x86/intel: Perform rotation on Intel CQM RMIDs

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Fri, 9 Jan 2015 12:22:39 +0000
From:	Matt Fleming <matt@...sole-pimps.org>
To:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...hat.com>,
	Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org>,
	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
	Kanaka Juvva <kanaka.d.juvva@...el.com>,
	Matt Fleming <matt.fleming@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 10/11] perf/x86/intel: Perform rotation on Intel CQM
 RMIDs

On Tue, 06 Jan, at 06:36:41PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 14, 2014 at 09:15:11PM +0000, Matt Fleming wrote:
> > @@ -417,17 +857,38 @@ static u64 intel_cqm_event_count(struct perf_event *event)
> >  	if (!cqm_group_leader(event))
> >  		return 0;
> >  
> > -	on_each_cpu_mask(&cqm_cpumask, __intel_cqm_event_count, &rr, 1);
> > +	/*
> > +	 * Notice that we don't perform the reading of an RMID
> > +	 * atomically, because we can't hold a spin lock across the
> > +	 * IPIs.
> > +	 *
> > +	 * Speculatively perform the read, since @event might be
> > +	 * assigned a different (possibly invalid) RMID while we're
> > +	 * busying performing the IPI calls. It's therefore necessary to
> > +	 * check @event's RMID afterwards, and if it has changed,
> > +	 * discard the result of the read.
> > +	 */
> > +	raw_spin_lock_irqsave(&cache_lock, flags);
> > +	rr.rmid = event->hw.cqm_rmid;
> > +	raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&cache_lock, flags);
> 
> You don't actually have to hold the lock here, only ACCESS_ONCE() or
> whatever newfangled thing replaced that.
 
Remind me again, are accesses to 'int' guaranteed to be atomic? There's
no way to read a partial value?

-- 
Matt Fleming, Intel Open Source Technology Center
--
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/