linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 -tip 0/6] locking: Introduce range reader/writer lock

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Mon, 15 May 2017 02:19:55 -0700
From:   Davidlohr Bueso <dave@...olabs.net>
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:     mingo@...nel.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org, jack@...e.cz,
        kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com, ldufour@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
        mhocko@...e.com, mgorman@...hsingularity.net,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 -tip 0/6] locking: Introduce range reader/writer lock

On Thu, 20 Apr 2017, Peter Zijlstra wrote:

>For opt spinning we need to specifically know who would be next in
>order, again, doesn't matter how many, just who's next.

I've sent a v3 with a more precise description of this, which I hope is
to your satisfaction.

Given a clear tree iteration/order defined by interval trees (indexed by
lowpoint and treats duplicates as inorder traversal), it is not something
I would wish to alter. Over the weekend I've been experimenting more with
still taking the tree->lock, but spinning while blocking ranges is 1 and
'owner' (in this case the first overlapping node, remembered when we did
the initial lookup adding to the tree, _with_ the tree->lock held) is on_cpu.
This would maintain the order and prevent blocking for threads that are
about (?) to receive the lock.

While I have somewhat of a patch, I'm tired and have not had the chance to
even test the thing, so I went ahead and sent v3 anyway to not delay further.

Thanks,
Davidlohr