linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] kernel/timekeeping: move xtime_cache to be in the same cache line as the lock

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: <1264594226.2059.47.camel@localhost>
Date:	Wed, 27 Jan 2010 12:10:26 +0000
From:	Richard Kennedy <richard@....demon.co.uk>
To:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:	John Stultz <johnstul@...ibm.com>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@...ibm.com>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] kernel/timekeeping:  move xtime_cache to be in the
 same cache line as the lock

On Tue, 2010-01-26 at 15:28 -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Thu, 21 Jan 2010 15:39:21 +0000
> Richard Kennedy <richard@....demon.co.uk> wrote:
> 
> > move xtime_cache to be in the same cache line as the lock
> >     
> > allowing current_kernel_time() to access only one cache line
> 
> Sentences start with capital letters, please.

Sorry about that, I will try harder in future ;)


> 
> I don't know how reliable this is.  I _think_ the compiler and linker
> are free to place variables of this nature in any old place.  Whether
> any of the current tools actually do that I don't know.  Note that one
> of these variables has file-static scope and the other does not, which
> perhaps increases the risk that the compiler or linker will go and
> fiddle with them.
> 
> To do this reliably one would need to put them in a struct:
> 
> time.h:
> 
> extern struct xtime_stuff {
> 	seqlock_t _xtime_lock,
> 	struct timespec _xtime_cache,
> } xtime_stuff;
> 
> #define xtime_lock xtime_stuff._xtime_lock
> 
> 
> timekeeping.c:
> 
> struct xtime_stuff {
> 	._xtime_lock = __SEQLOCK_UNLOCKED(xtime_stuff._xtime_lock),
> };
Thank you, yes that looks like a much better approach.
I can do this if it's needed, but John Stultz said he's going to kill
the xtime_cache anyway, so it may not be worth it?

However I do wonder if we should move all, or at least some, of the
variables protected by that xtime_lock into that structure? Then we can
manage their placement and they would be easier to find. After only a
brief look I see variables in ntp, tick &  timekeeping that seem to be
protected by that seqlock.

> > BTW on 64 bit timespec is a 16 byte structure so the aligned 16 doesn't
> > do much, and on 32bit timepec is 8bytes so this just seems to spread
> > these variables across more cache lines than necessary. Any ideas what
> > this is here for?
> 
> Dunno.  I had a bit of a peek in the git history but it got complicated
> and people rarely bother explaining things like this anyway :(
> 
regards
Richard

--
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/