linux-kernel - Re: [patch 2/2] x86_64: ticket lock spinlock

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: <20070809014012.GA12539@wotan.suse.de>
Date:	Thu, 9 Aug 2007 03:40:12 +0200
From:	Nick Piggin <npiggin@...e.de>
To:	Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu
Cc:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, Andi Kleen <ak@...e.de>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [patch 2/2] x86_64: ticket lock spinlock

On Wed, Aug 08, 2007 at 01:31:58PM -0400, Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu wrote:
> On Wed, 08 Aug 2007 06:24:44 +0200, Nick Piggin said:
> 
> > After this, we can no longer spin on any locks with preempt enabled,
> > and cannot reenable interrupts when spinning on an irq safe lock, because
> > at that point we have already taken a ticket and the would deadlock if
> > the same CPU tries to take the lock again.  These are hackish anyway: if
> > the lock happens to be called under a preempt or interrupt disabled section,
> > then it will just have the same latency problems. The real fix is to keep
> > critical sections short, and ensure locks are reasonably fair (which this
> > patch does).
> 
> Any guesstimates how often we do that sort of hackish thing currently, and
> how hard it will be to debug each one?  "Deadlock if the same CPU tries to
> take the lock again" is pretty easy to notice - are there more subtle failure
> modes (larger loops of locks, etc)?

I'll try to explain better:

The old spinlocks re-enable preemption and interrupts while they spin
waiting for a held lock. This was done because people noticed some
long latencies while spinning. The problem however is that preemption
and interrupts can only be re-enabled if they were enabled before the
spin_lock call. So if you have code that perhaps takes nested locks,
or locks while interrupts are already disabled, then you get the latency
problems back.

So the non-hack fix is to keep critical sections short (which is what
we've been working at forever), and to have relatively fair locks
(which is what this patch does).

A side-effect of this patch is that it can no longer enable preemption
or ints while spinning, so my changelog is a rationale of why that
shouldn't be a big problem.

-
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/