linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH 1/3] lib/list_batch: A simple list insertion/deletion batching facility

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:	Thu, 28 Jan 2016 11:45:40 -0500
From:	Waiman Long <waiman.long@....com>
To:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
CC:	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
	Alexander Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
	linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, x86@...nel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Scott J Norton <scott.norton@...com>,
	Douglas Hatch <doug.hatch@...com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 1/3] lib/list_batch: A simple list insertion/deletion
 batching facility

On 01/27/2016 03:54 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 27, 2016 at 03:22:19PM -0500, Waiman Long wrote:
>
>>>> +	/*
>>>> +	 * Put itself into the list_batch queue
>>>> +	 */
>>>> +	node.next  = NULL;
>>>> +	node.entry = entry;
>>>> +	node.cmd   = cmd;
>>>> +	node.state = lb_state_waiting;
>>>> +
>>> Here we rely on the release barrier implied by xchg() to ensure the node
>>> initialization is complete before the xchg() publishes the thing.
>>>
>>> But do we also need the acquire part of this barrier? From what I could
>>> tell, the primitive as a whole does not imply any ordering.
>> I think we probably won't need the acquire part, but I don't have a non-x86
>> machine that can really test out the more relaxed versions of the atomic
>> ops. That is why I use the strict versions. We can always relax it later on
>> with additional patches.
> Yeah, I have no hardware either. But at least we should comment the bits
> we do know to rely upon.
>

Using xchg_release() looks OK to me. As this feature is enabled on x86 
only for this patch, we can make the change and whoever enabling it for 
other architectures that have a real release function will have to test it.

>>>> +	if (!next) {
>>>> +		/*
>>>> +		 * The queue tail should equal to nptr, so clear it to
>>>> +		 * mark the queue as empty.
>>>> +		 */
>>>> +		if (cmpxchg(&batch->tail, nptr, NULL) != nptr) {
>>>> +			/*
>>>> +			 * Queue not empty, wait until the next pointer is
>>>> +			 * initialized.
>>>> +			 */
>>>> +			while (!(next = READ_ONCE(nptr->next)))
>>>> +				cpu_relax();
>>>> +		}
>>>> +		/* The above cmpxchg acts as a memory barrier */
>>> for what? :-)
>>>
>>> Also, if that cmpxchg() fails, it very much does _not_ act as one.
>>>
>>> I suspect you want smp_store_release() setting the state_done, just as
>>> above, and then use cmpxchg_relaxed().
>> You are right. I did forgot about there was no memory barrier guarantee when
>> cmpxchg() fails.
>> However, in that case, the READ_ONCE() and WRITE_ONCE()
>> macros should still provide the necessary ordering, IMO.
> READ/WRITE_ONCE() provide _no_ order what so ever. And the issue here is
> that we must not do any other stores to nptr after the state_done.
>

I thought if those macros are accessing the same cacheline, the compiler 
won't change the ordering and the hardware will take care of the proper 
ordering. Anyway, I do intended to change to use smp_store_release() for 
safety.

>> I can certainly
>> change it to use cmpxchg_relaxed() and smp_store_release() instead.
> That seems a safe combination and would still generate the exact same
> code on x86.

Cheers,
Longman