linux-kernel - Re: Async resume patch (was: Re: [GIT PULL] PM updates for 2.6.33)

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: <Pine.LNX.4.44L0.0912081412450.3046-100000@iolanthe.rowland.org>
Date:	Tue, 8 Dec 2009 14:30:50 -0500 (EST)
From:	Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>
To:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
cc:	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>, Zhang Rui <rui.zhang@...el.com>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	ACPI Devel Maling List <linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>,
	pm list <linux-pm@...ts.linux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: Async resume patch (was: Re: [GIT PULL] PM updates for 2.6.33)

On Tue, 8 Dec 2009, Linus Torvalds wrote:

> > The whole readers vs. writers thing is a non-sequitur.
> 
> No it's not.
> 
> It's a 100% equivalent problem. It's purely a change of wording. The end 
> result is the same.

Well, of course the end result is the same (ignoring bugs) -- that was 
the point.  It doesn't follow that the two locking mechanisms are 100% 
equivalent.

> And note how even though you sprinkled random memory barriers around, you 
> still got it wrong. 

Yes.  That comes of trying to think at the keyboard.

> It's certainly not smaller. It's not faster. It doesn't have support for 
> lockdep. And it's BUGGY.

Lockdep will choke on the rwsem approach anyway.  It has never been
very good at handling tree-structured locking, especially when there
are non-parent-child interactions.  But never mind.

> Really. Tell me why you want to re-implement an existing lock - badly.

I didn't want to.  The whole exercise was intended to make a point -- 
that rwsems do more than we really need here.

> [ Hint: you need a smp_mb() *before* the atomic_dec() in wait-unlock, so 
>   that anybody else who sees the new value will be guaranteed to have seen 
>   anything else the unlocker did.

Yes.

>   You also need a smp_mb() in the wait_for_lock(), not a smp_rmb(). Can't 
>   allow writes to migrate up either.  'atomic_read()' does not imply any
>   barriers.

No, that's not needed.  Unlike reads, writes can't move in front of
data or control dependencies.  Or so I've been lead to believe...

> That "wait_for_lock()" is equivalent to a 'read_lock()+read_unlock()'.

Not really.  It also corresponds to a 'write_lock()+write_unlock()' (in
the suspend routine).  Are you claiming these two compound operations
are equivalent?

> We 
> _could_ expose such a mechanism for rwsem's too, but why do it? It's 
> actually nicer to use a real read-lock - and do it _around_ the operation, 
> because now the locking also automatically gets things like overlapping 
> suspends and resumes right.
> 
> (Which you'd obviously hope never happens, but it's nice from a conceptual 
> standpoint to know that the locking is robust).

> Take heed. You got it wrong. Admit it. Locking is _hard_. SMP memory 
> ordering is HARD.

Oh, there's no question about that.  I never seriously intended this 
stuff to be adopted.  It was just for discussion.

Alan Stern

--
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/