linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH v14] sys_membarrier(): system/process-wide memory barrier (x86)

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, 18 Mar 2015 10:15:55 -0700
From:	josh@...htriplett.org
To:	Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>,
	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
	Nicholas Miell <nmiell@...cast.net>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
	Alan Cox <gnomes@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
	Lai Jiangshan <laijs@...fujitsu.com>,
	Stephen Hemminger <stephen@...workplumber.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v14] sys_membarrier(): system/process-wide memory
 barrier (x86)

On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 04:52:14PM +0000, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
> ----- Original Message -----
> > On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 12:23:02PM -0400, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
> > > memory barriers in reader:    1701557485 reads, 3129842 writes
> > > signal-based scheme:          9825306874 reads,    5386 writes
> > > sys_membarrier:               7992076602 reads,     220 writes
> > > 
> > > The dynamic sys_membarrier availability check adds some overhead to
> > > the read-side compared to the signal-based scheme, but besides that,
> > > with the expedited scheme, we can see that we are close to the read-side
> > > performance of the signal-based scheme. However, this non-expedited
> > > sys_membarrier implementation has a much slower grace period than signal
> > > and memory barrier schemes.
> > 
> > Doesn't the query flag allow you to find out in advance rather than
> > dynamically within the reader?  What's the reader performance if you
> > hardcode availability of membarrier?
> 
> What I am currently doing is to use sys_membarrier with a query
> flag within a lib constructor, and cache the result in a global
> variable. In the reader, I just test the variable, and thus detect
> whether I can use sys_membarrier, or if I need to fallback to
> barriers on both reader and writer.
> 
> Are you suggesting I try removing the global variable load+test
> from the reader fast path ?

Right.  You said that "The dynamic sys_membarrier availability check
adds some overhead to the read-side compared to the signal-based
scheme"; I wondered how much.

- Josh Triplett
--
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/