netdev - Re: [PATCH RFC 02/26] task_work: Replace spin_unlock

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, 30 Jun 2017 13:02:48 -0700
From:   "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:     Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, netfilter-devel@...r.kernel.org,
        netdev@...r.kernel.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
        mingo@...hat.com, dave@...olabs.net, manfred@...orfullife.com,
        tj@...nel.org, arnd@...db.de, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org,
        will.deacon@....com, peterz@...radead.org,
        stern@...land.harvard.edu, parri.andrea@...il.com,
        torvalds@...ux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 02/26] task_work: Replace spin_unlock_wait() with
 lock/unlock pair

On Fri, Jun 30, 2017 at 09:21:23PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> On 06/30, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Jun 30, 2017 at 05:20:10PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > >
> > > I do not think the overhead will be noticeable in this particular case.
> > >
> > > But I am not sure I understand why do we want to unlock_wait. Yes I agree,
>                                    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> 
> if it was not clear, I tried to say "why do we want to _remove_ unlock_wait".
> 
> > > it has some problems, but still...
> > >
> > > The code above looks strange for me. If we are going to repeat this pattern
> > > the perhaps we should add a helper for lock+unlock and name it unlock_wait2 ;)
> > >
> > > If not, we should probably change this code more:
> >
> > This looks -much- better than my patch!  May I have your Signed-off-by?
> 
> Only if you promise to replace all RCU flavors with a single simple implementation
> based on rwlock ;)

;-) ;-) ;-)

Here you go:

https://github.com/pramalhe/ConcurrencyFreaks/blob/master/papers/poormanurcu-2015.pdf

> Seriously, of course I won't argue, and it seems that nobody except me likes
> this primitive, but to me spin_unlock_wait() looks like synchronize_rcu(() and
> sometimes it makes sense.

Well, that analogy was what led me to propose that its semantics be
defined as spin_lock() immediately followed by spin_unlock().  But that
didn't go over well.

> Including this particular case. task_work_run() is going to flush/destroy the
> ->task_works list, so it needs to wait until all currently executing "readers"
> (task_work_cancel()'s which have started before ->task_works was updated) have
> completed.

Understood!

							Thanx, Paul