linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH v2] membarrier: expedited private command

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:   Sat, 29 Jul 2017 11:23:33 +0200
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:     Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@...il.com>
Cc:     Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>,
        "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>,
        Andrew Hunter <ahh@...gle.com>,
        maged michael <maged.michael@...il.com>,
        gromer <gromer@...gle.com>, Avi Kivity <avi@...lladb.com>,
        Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>,
        Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
        Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@...belt.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2] membarrier: expedited private command

On Sat, Jul 29, 2017 at 11:58:40AM +1000, Nicholas Piggin wrote:
> I haven't had time to read the thread and understand exactly why you need
> this extra barrier, I'll do it next week. Thanks for cc'ing us on it.

Bottom of here:

https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20170727135610.jwjfvyuacqzj5e4u@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net

is probably the fastest way towards understanding the need for a barrier
after rq->curr assignment.

Any barrier after that assignment is good for us, but so far it looks
like PPC doesn't (and PPC only afaict) provide any smp_mb() after that
point.

> A smp_mb is pretty expensive on powerpc CPUs. Removing the sync from
> switch_to increased thread switch performance by 2-3%. Putting it in
> switch_mm may be a little less painful, but still we have to weigh it
> against the benefit of this new functionality. Would that be a net win
> for the average end-user? Seems unlikely.
> 
> But we also don't want to lose sys_membarrier completely. Would it be too
> painful to make  MEMBARRIER_CMD_PRIVATE_EXPEDITED return error, or make it
> fall back to a slower case if we decide not to implement it?

One ugly thing we've thought of is tagging each mm that has used
sys_membarrier() and only issue the smp_mb() for those. That way only
those tasks that actually rely on the syscall get to pay the price.