linux-kernel - Re: Question about barriers for ARM on tools/perf/

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:	Fri, 8 May 2015 11:57:01 -0300
From:	Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org>
To:	Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>
Cc:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
	David Ahern <dsahern@...il.com>, Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...hat.com>,
	Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...il.com>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Question about barriers for ARM on tools/perf/

Em Fri, May 08, 2015 at 03:48:20PM +0100, Will Deacon escreveu:
> On Fri, May 08, 2015 at 03:37:29PM +0100, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
> > Em Fri, May 08, 2015 at 04:25:13PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra escreveu:
> > > He wants to do smp refcounting, which needs atomic_inc() /
> > > atomic_inc_non_zero() / atomic_dec_return() etc..
> > 
> > Right, Will concentrated on what we use those barriers for right now in
> > tools/perf.
> > 
> > What I am doing right now is to expose what we use in perf to a wider
> > audience, i.e. code being developed in tools/, with the current intent
> > of implementing referece counting for multithreaded tools/perf/ tools,
> > right now only 'perf top', but there are patches floating to load a
> > perf.data file using as many CPUs as one would like, IIRC initially one
> > per available CPU.
> > 
> > I am using as a fallback the gcc intrinsics (), but I've heard I rather
> > should not use those, albeit they seemed to work well for x86_64 and
> > sparc64:
> 
> Do you know what the objection to the intrinsics was? I believe that
> the __sync versions are deprecated in favour of the C11-like __atomic
> flavours, so if that was all the objection was about then we could use
> one or the other depending on what the compiler supports.

Peter? Ingo?
 
> > One of my hopes for a byproduct was to take advantage of improvements
> > made to that code in the kernel, etc.
> > 
> > At least using the same API, i.e.  barrier(), mb(), rmb(), wmb(),
> > atomic_{inc,dec_and_test,read_init} I will, the whole shebang would be
> > even cooler.
> 
> Perhaps, but including atomic.h sounds pretty fragile to me. Sure, if we
> define the right set of macros we may get it to work today, but we could
> easily get subtle breakages as the kernel sources move forward and we might
> not easily notice/diagnose the failures in the perf tool.

Ok, that is a good argument not to share the same source code and
instead do what I am doing now, use it as the starting point, keep the
source code as much as possible the same, so that doing a:

  diff -u arch/$ARCH/include/asm/barrier.h tools/arch/$ARCH/include/asm/barrier.h

Would help in figuring out differences that may or may be desired, while
tracking what the kernel does would help keep the tools/ version in the
best possible shape.

This could even make it more likely that the kernel developers would
help having the best possible implementation in tools/ for that subset
of their work... :-)

- Arnaldo
--
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/