linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH -v4 8/8] locking/mutex: Enable optimistic spinning of woken waiter

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:   Mon, 17 Oct 2016 11:32:42 +0200
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:     Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>
Cc:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Waiman Long <waiman.long@....com>,
        Jason Low <jason.low2@....com>,
        Ding Tianhong <dingtianhong@...wei.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        Imre Deak <imre.deak@...el.com>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Davidlohr Bueso <dave@...olabs.net>,
        Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com>,
        Terry Rudd <terry.rudd@....com>,
        "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ibm.com>,
        Jason Low <jason.low2@...com>,
        Chris Wilson <chris@...is-wilson.co.uk>,
        Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@...ll.ch>
Subject: Re: [PATCH -v4 8/8] locking/mutex: Enable optimistic spinning of
 woken waiter

On Thu, Oct 13, 2016 at 04:28:01PM +0100, Will Deacon wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 07, 2016 at 04:52:51PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:

> > @@ -457,15 +472,20 @@ static bool mutex_optimistic_spin(struct
> >  		 * release the lock or go to sleep.
> >  		 */
> >  		owner = __mutex_owner(lock);
> > -		if (owner && !mutex_spin_on_owner(lock, owner))
> > -			break;
> > +		if (owner) {
> > +			if (waiter && owner == task) {
> > +				smp_mb(); /* ACQUIRE */
> 
> Hmm, is this barrier actually needed? This only happens on the handoff path,
> and we take the wait_lock immediately after this succeeds anyway. That
> control dependency, coupled with the acquire semantics of the spin_lock,
> should be sufficient, no?

Yes, I think you're right. But like said in that earlier email, I'd like
to keep this for now.

Once this code has settled we can reconsider this.