linux-kernel - Re: Shared futexes (was [PATCH] FUTEX : new PRIVATE futexes)

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, 06 Apr 2007 15:22:44 +0200
From:	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
To:	Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@...oo.com.au>
Cc:	Hugh Dickins <hugh@...itas.com>,
	Eric Dumazet <dada1@...mosbay.com>,
	Ulrich Drepper <drepper@...il.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Dave Jones <davej@...hat.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Andi Kleen <ak@...e.de>,
	Ravikiran G Thirumalai <kiran@...lex86.org>,
	"Shai Fultheim (Shai@...lex86.org)" <shai@...lex86.org>,
	pravin b shelar <pravin.shelar@...softinc.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	"Pierre.Peiffer" <Pierre.Peiffer@...l.net>
Subject: Re: Shared futexes (was [PATCH] FUTEX : new PRIVATE futexes)

On Fri, 2007-04-06 at 23:15 +1000, Nick Piggin wrote:
> Hugh Dickins wrote:
> > On Fri, 6 Apr 2007, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > 
> >>some thoughts on shared futexes;
> >>
> >>Could we get rid of the mmap_sem on the shared futexes in the following
> >>manner:
> 
> I'd imagine shared futexes would be much less common than private for
> threaded programs... I'd say we should reevaluate things once we have
> private futexes, and malloc/free stop hammering mmap_sem so hard...

Indeed, private futexes are by far the most common.

> >> - get a page using pfn_to_page (skipping VM_PFNMAP)
> >> - get the futex key from page->mapping->host and page->index
> >>   and offset from addr % PAGE_SIZE.
> >>
> >>or given a key:
> >>
> >> - lookup the page from key.shared.inode->i_mapping by key.shared.pgoff
> >>   possibly loading the page using mapping->a_ops->readpage().
> 
> For shared futexes, wouldn't i_mapping be worse, because you'd be
> ping-ponging the tree_lock between processes, rather than have each
> use their own mmap_sem?

Your lockless pagecache work would solve most of that, no?

> That also only helps for the wakeup case too, doesn't it? You have
> to use the vmas to find out which inode to use to do the wait, I think?
> (unless you introduce a new shared futex API).

one could do something like this:

 struct address_space *mapping = page_mapping(page);
 if (!mapping || mapping == &swapper_space)
   do_private_futex();
 else
   do_shared_futex(mapping->host, page->index, addr % PAGE_SIZE);


But alas, it seems I overlooked that the mmap_sem also protects the page
tables as pointed out by Hugh, so this is all in fain it seems.

A well.

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/