linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/2] scalable rw

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]

Message-Id: <1178989068.19461.3.camel@lappy>
Date:	Sat, 12 May 2007 18:57:47 +0200
From:	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
To:	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...sign.ru>
Cc:	linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Nick Piggin <npiggin@...e.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] scalable rw_mutex

On Sat, 2007-05-12 at 20:04 +0400, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> On 05/12, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> >
> > +static inline void rw_mutex_readers_dec(struct rw_mutex *rw_mutex)
> > +{
> > +	percpu_counter_dec(&rw_mutex->readers);
> > +	smp_wmb();
> > +}
> >
> > +void rw_mutex_read_unlock(struct rw_mutex *rw_mutex)
> > +{
> > +	rw_mutex_readers_dec(rw_mutex);
> > +	/*
> > +	 * on the slow path;
> > +	 * nudge the writer waiting for the last reader to go away
> > +	 */
> > +	if (unlikely(rw_mutex_reader_slow(rw_mutex)))
> > +		rw_mutex_writer_wake(rw_mutex);
> > +}
> >
> > +void rw_mutex_write_lock_nested(struct rw_mutex *rw_mutex, int subclass)
> > +{
> > +	mutex_lock_nested(&rw_mutex->write_mutex, subclass);
> > +
> > +	/*
> > +	 * block new readers
> > +	 */
> > +	mutex_lock_nested(&rw_mutex->read_mutex, subclass);
> > +	rw_mutex_status_set(rw_mutex, RW_MUTEX_READER_SLOW);
> > +	/*
> > +	 * and wait for all current readers to go away
> > +	 */
> > +	rw_mutex_writer_wait(rw_mutex, (rw_mutex_readers(rw_mutex) == 0));
> > +}
> 
> I think this is still not right, but when it comes to barriers we
> need a true expert (Paul cc-ed).
> 
> this code roughly does (the only reader does unlock)
> 
> 	READER			WRITER
> 
> 	readers = 0;		state = 1;
> 	wmb();			wmb();
> 	CHECK(state != 0)	CHECK(readers == 0)
> 
> We need to ensure that we can't miss both CHECKs. Either reader
> should see RW_MUTEX_READER_SLOW, o writer sees "readers == 0"
> and does not sleep.
> 
> In that case both barriers should be converted to smp_mb(). There
> was a _long_ discussion about STORE-MB-LOAD behaviour, and experts
> seem to believe everething is ok.

Ah, but note that both those CHECK()s have a rmb(), so that ends up
being:

	READER				WRITER

	readers = 0;			state = 1;
	wmb();				wmb();

	rmb();				rmb();		
	if (state != 0)			if (readers == 0)

and a wmb+rmb is a full mb, right?

> Another question. Isn't it possible to kill rw_mutex->status ?
> 
> I have a vague feeling you can change the code so that
> 
> 	rw_mutex_reader_slow() <=> "->waiter != NULL"
> 
> , but I am not sure.

If not now, it might be possible to make it so. Thanks for the
suggestion.

Peter

-
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/