linux-kernel - Re: [patch 05/52] lglock: introduce special lglock and brlock spin locks

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: <alpine.LFD.2.00.1006241904160.2911@localhost.localdomain>
Date:	Thu, 24 Jun 2010 20:15:54 +0200 (CEST)
From:	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To:	npiggin@...e.de
cc:	linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	John Stultz <johnstul@...ibm.com>,
	Frank Mayhar <fmayhar@...gle.com>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Subject: Re: [patch 05/52] lglock: introduce special lglock and brlock spin
 locks

On Thu, 24 Jun 2010, npiggin@...e.de wrote:

> +#define DEFINE_LGLOCK(name)						\
> +									\
> + DEFINE_PER_CPU(arch_spinlock_t, name##_lock);				\

Uuurgh. You want to make that an arch_spinlock ? Just to avoid the
preempt_count overflow when you lock all cpu locks nested ?

I'm really not happy about that, it's going to be a complete nightmare
for RT. If you wanted to make this a present for RT giving the
scalability stuff massive testing, then you failed miserably :)

I know how to fix it, but can't we go for an approach which
does not require massive RT patching again ?

struct percpu_lock {
       spinlock_t lock;
       unsigned   global_state;
};

And let the lock function do:

    spin_lock(&pcp->lock);
    while (pcp->global_state)
    	  cpu_relax();

So the global lock side can take each single lock, modify the percpu
"global state" and release the lock. On unlock you just need to reset
the global state w/o taking the percpu lock and be done.

I doubt that the extra conditional in the lock path is going to be
relevant overhead, compared to the spin_lock it's noise.

Thanks,

	tglx
--
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/