linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH -v7][RFC]: mutex: implement adaptive spinning

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:	Thu, 08 Jan 2009 16:23:40 +0100
From:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Cc:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Gregory Haskins <ghaskins@...ell.com>,
	Matthew Wilcox <matthew@....cx>,
	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
	Chris Mason <chris.mason@...cle.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
	linux-btrfs <linux-btrfs@...r.kernel.org>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Nick Piggin <npiggin@...e.de>,
	Peter Morreale <pmorreale@...ell.com>,
	Sven Dietrich <SDietrich@...ell.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH -v7][RFC]: mutex: implement adaptive spinning

On Thu, 2009-01-08 at 10:09 -0500, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Thu, 8 Jan 2009, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > Index: linux-2.6/kernel/sched.c
> > ===================================================================
> > --- linux-2.6.orig/kernel/sched.c
> > +++ linux-2.6/kernel/sched.c
> > @@ -4672,6 +4672,72 @@ need_resched_nonpreemptible:
> >  }
> >  EXPORT_SYMBOL(schedule);
> >  
> > +#ifdef CONFIG_SMP
> > +/*
> > + * Look out! "owner" is an entirely speculative pointer
> > + * access and not reliable.
> > + */
> > +int spin_on_owner(struct mutex *lock, struct thread_info *owner)
> > +{
> > +	unsigned int cpu;
> > +	struct rq *rq;
> > +	int ret = 1;
> > +
> > +	if (unlikely(!sched_feat(OWNER_SPIN)))
> 
> I would remove the "unlikely", if someone turns OWNER_SPIN off, then you 
> have the wrong decision being made. Choices by users should never be in a 
> "likely" or "unlikely" annotation. It's discrimination ;-)

in the unlikely case we schedule(), that seems expensive enough to want
to make the spin case ever so slightly faster.

> > +		return 0;
> > +
> > +	preempt_disable();
> > +#ifdef CONFIG_DEBUG_PAGEALLOC
> > +	/*
> > +	 * Need to access the cpu field knowing that
> > +	 * DEBUG_PAGEALLOC could have unmapped it if
> > +	 * the mutex owner just released it and exited.
> > +	 */
> > +	if (probe_kernel_address(&owner->cpu, cpu))
> > +		goto out;
> > +#else
> > +	cpu = owner->cpu;
> > +#endif
> > +
> > +	/*
> > +	 * Even if the access succeeded (likely case),
> > +	 * the cpu field may no longer be valid.
> > +	 */
> > +	if (cpu >= nr_cpumask_bits)
> > +		goto out;
> > +
> > +	/*
> > +	 * We need to validate that we can do a
> > +	 * get_cpu() and that we have the percpu area.
> > +	 */
> > +	if (!cpu_online(cpu))
> > +		goto out;
> 
> Should we need to do a "get_cpu" or something? Couldn't the CPU disappear 
> between these two calls. Or does it do a stop-machine and the preempt 
> disable will protect us?

Did you miss the preempt_disable() a bit up?

> > +
> > +	rq = cpu_rq(cpu);
> > +
> > +	for (;;) {
> > +		if (lock->owner != owner)
> > +			break;
> > +
> > +		/*
> > +		 * Is that owner really running on that cpu?
> > +		 */
> > +		if (task_thread_info(rq->curr) != owner)
> > +			break;
> > +
> > +		if (need_resched()) {
> > +			ret = 0;
> > +			break;
> > +		}
> > +
> > +		cpu_relax();
> > +	}
> > +out:
> > +	preempt_enable_no_resched();
> > +	return ret;
> > +}
> > +#endif

--
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/