| 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
| ||
|
Message-Id: <1273634462-2672-12-git-send-email-walken@google.com>
Date: Tue, 11 May 2010 20:21:01 -0700
From: Michel Lespinasse <walken@...gle.com>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Mike Waychison <mikew@...gle.com>,
Suleiman Souhlal <suleiman@...gle.com>,
Ying Han <yinghan@...gle.com>,
Michel Lespinasse <walken@...gle.com>
Subject: [PATCH 11/12] x86 rwsem: down_read_unfair implementation
RWSEM_ACTIVE_WRITE_BIAS is set to be 'more negative' than RWSEM_WAITING_BIAS
so that down_read_unfair() can check for active writers by comparing
the rwsem count against RWSEM_WAITING_BIAS.
Signed-off-by: Michel Lespinasse <walken@...gle.com>
---
arch/x86/include/asm/rwsem.h | 43 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------
arch/x86/lib/rwsem_64.S | 10 +++++++++
arch/x86/lib/semaphore_32.S | 17 ++++++++++++++++
3 files changed, 62 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
diff --git a/arch/x86/include/asm/rwsem.h b/arch/x86/include/asm/rwsem.h
index a15b84d..0b3a924 100644
--- a/arch/x86/include/asm/rwsem.h
+++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/rwsem.h
@@ -16,11 +16,10 @@
* if there are writers (and maybe) readers waiting (in which case it goes to
* sleep).
*
- * The value of WAITING_BIAS supports up to 32766 waiting processes. This can
- * be extended to 65534 by manually checking the whole MSW rather than relying
- * on the S flag.
+ * The WRITE_BIAS value supports up to 32767 processes simultaneously
+ * trying to acquire a write lock.
*
- * The value of ACTIVE_BIAS supports up to 65535 active processes.
+ * The value of ACTIVE_BIAS supports up to 32767 active processes.
*
* This should be totally fair - if anything is waiting, a process that wants a
* lock will go to the back of the queue. When the currently active lock is
@@ -48,6 +47,8 @@ struct rwsem_waiter;
extern asmregparm struct rw_semaphore *
rwsem_down_read_failed(struct rw_semaphore *sem);
extern asmregparm struct rw_semaphore *
+ rwsem_down_read_unfair_failed(struct rw_semaphore *sem);
+extern asmregparm struct rw_semaphore *
rwsem_down_write_failed(struct rw_semaphore *sem);
extern asmregparm struct rw_semaphore *
rwsem_wake(struct rw_semaphore *);
@@ -63,16 +64,19 @@ extern asmregparm struct rw_semaphore *
*/
#ifdef CONFIG_X86_64
-# define RWSEM_ACTIVE_MASK 0xffffffffL
+# define RWSEM_ACTIVE_MASK 0x7fffffffL
#else
-# define RWSEM_ACTIVE_MASK 0x0000ffffL
+# define RWSEM_ACTIVE_MASK 0x00007fffL
#endif
#define RWSEM_UNLOCKED_VALUE 0x00000000L
#define RWSEM_ACTIVE_BIAS 0x00000001L
#define RWSEM_WAITING_BIAS (-RWSEM_ACTIVE_MASK-1)
#define RWSEM_ACTIVE_READ_BIAS RWSEM_ACTIVE_BIAS
-#define RWSEM_ACTIVE_WRITE_BIAS (RWSEM_WAITING_BIAS + RWSEM_ACTIVE_BIAS)
+#define RWSEM_ACTIVE_WRITE_BIAS (2 * RWSEM_WAITING_BIAS + \
+ RWSEM_ACTIVE_BIAS)
+
+#define __HAVE_DOWN_READ_UNFAIR
typedef signed long rwsem_count_t;
@@ -129,6 +133,28 @@ static inline void __down_read(struct rw_semaphore *sem)
}
/*
+ * lock for reading - skip waiting writers
+ */
+static inline void __down_read_unfair(struct rw_semaphore *sem)
+{
+ rwsem_count_t tmp;
+
+ tmp = RWSEM_ACTIVE_READ_BIAS;
+ asm volatile("# beginning down_read_unfair\n\t"
+ LOCK_PREFIX " xadd %1,(%2)\n\t"
+ /* adds 0x00000001, returns the old value */
+ " cmp %4,%1\n\t"
+ /* was the count >= RWSEM_WAITING_BIAS before? */
+ " jge 1f\n"
+ " call call_rwsem_down_read_unfair_failed\n"
+ "1:\n"
+ "# ending down_read_unfair"
+ : "+m" (sem->count), "=r" (tmp)
+ : "a" (sem), "1" (tmp), "re" (RWSEM_WAITING_BIAS)
+ : "memory", "cc");
+}
+
+/*
* trylock for reading -- returns 1 if successful, 0 if contention
*/
static inline int __down_read_trylock(struct rw_semaphore *sem)
@@ -248,7 +274,8 @@ static inline void __downgrade_write(struct rw_semaphore *sem)
"1:\n\t"
"# ending __downgrade_write\n"
: "+m" (sem->count)
- : "a" (sem), "er" (-RWSEM_WAITING_BIAS)
+ : "a" (sem),
+ "er" (RWSEM_ACTIVE_READ_BIAS - RWSEM_ACTIVE_WRITE_BIAS)
: "memory", "cc");
}
diff --git a/arch/x86/lib/rwsem_64.S b/arch/x86/lib/rwsem_64.S
index 770a387..328ef64 100644
--- a/arch/x86/lib/rwsem_64.S
+++ b/arch/x86/lib/rwsem_64.S
@@ -51,6 +51,16 @@ ENTRY(call_rwsem_down_read_failed)
ret
ENDPROC(call_rwsem_down_read_failed)
+ENTRY(call_rwsem_down_read_unfair_failed)
+ save_common_regs
+ pushq %rdx
+ movq %rax,%rdi
+ call rwsem_down_read_unfair_failed
+ popq %rdx
+ restore_common_regs
+ ret
+ ENDPROC(call_rwsem_down_read_failed)
+
ENTRY(call_rwsem_down_write_failed)
save_common_regs
movq %rax,%rdi
diff --git a/arch/x86/lib/semaphore_32.S b/arch/x86/lib/semaphore_32.S
index 63dbf75..115d2ad 100644
--- a/arch/x86/lib/semaphore_32.S
+++ b/arch/x86/lib/semaphore_32.S
@@ -89,6 +89,23 @@ ENTRY(call_rwsem_down_read_failed)
CFI_ENDPROC
ENDPROC(call_rwsem_down_read_failed)
+ENTRY(call_rwsem_down_read_unfair_failed)
+ CFI_STARTPROC
+ push %ecx
+ CFI_ADJUST_CFA_OFFSET 4
+ CFI_REL_OFFSET ecx,0
+ push %edx
+ CFI_ADJUST_CFA_OFFSET 4
+ CFI_REL_OFFSET edx,0
+ call rwsem_down_read_unfair_failed
+ pop %edx
+ CFI_ADJUST_CFA_OFFSET -4
+ pop %ecx
+ CFI_ADJUST_CFA_OFFSET -4
+ ret
+ CFI_ENDPROC
+ ENDPROC(call_rwsem_down_read_failed)
+
ENTRY(call_rwsem_down_write_failed)
CFI_STARTPROC
push %ecx
--
1.7.0.1
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists