linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] SLUB: use have_arch

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0708271240350.5056@schroedinger.engr.sgi.com>
Date:	Mon, 27 Aug 2007 12:43:18 -0700 (PDT)
From:	Christoph Lameter <clameter@....com>
To:	Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...ymtl.ca>
cc:	Pekka Enberg <penberg@...helsinki.fi>, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, mingo@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] SLUB: use have_arch_cmpxchg()

On Mon, 27 Aug 2007, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:

> Hrm, actually, I don't think such have_arch_cmpxchg() macro will be
> required at all because of the small performance hit disabling
> preemption will have on the slow and fast paths. Let's compare, for each
> of the slow path and fast path, what locking looks like on architecture
> with and without local cmpxchg:
> 
> What we actually do here is:
> 
> fast path:
> with local_cmpxchg:
>   preempt_disable()
>   preempt_enable()
> without local_cmpxchg:
>   preempt_disable()
>   local_irq_save
>   local_irq_restore
>   preempt_enable()
>     (we therefore disable preemption _and_ disable interrupts for
>     nothing)

Hmmm..... This is a performance issue for preempt kernels.

> slow path:
> both with and without local_cmpxchg():
>   preempt_disable()
>   preempt_enable()

Here we potentially loose our per cpu structure since the process may be 
rescheduled.

>   local_irq_save()
>   local_irq_restore()
> 
> 
> Therefore, we would add preempt disable/enable to the fast path of
> architectures where local_cmpxchg is emulated with irqs off. But since
> preempt disable/enable is just a check counter increment/decrement with
> barrier() and thread flag check, I doubt it would hurt performances
> enough to justify the added complexity of disabling interrupts for the
> whole fast path in this case.

One additional cacheline referenced in the hot path. Ok the counter may be 
hot as well if this is a preemptible kernel. Nevertheless a cause for 
concern.

-
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/