linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 02/20] x86/ticketlock: convert spin loop to C

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: <1288797092.2511.141.camel@edumazet-laptop>
Date:	Wed, 03 Nov 2010 16:11:32 +0100
From:	Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
To:	Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>
Cc:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Nick Piggin <npiggin@...e.de>,
	Jan Beulich <JBeulich@...ell.com>, Avi Kivity <avi@...hat.com>,
	Xen-devel <xen-devel@...ts.xensource.com>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
	Linux Virtualization <virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org>,
	Srivatsa Vaddagiri <vatsa@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy.fitzhardinge@...rix.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 02/20] x86/ticketlock: convert spin loop to C

Le mercredi 03 novembre 2010 à 10:59 -0400, Jeremy Fitzhardinge a
écrit :
> From: Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy.fitzhardinge@...rix.com>
> 
> The inner loop of __ticket_spin_lock isn't doing anything very special,
> so reimplement it in C.
> 
> For the 8 bit ticket lock variant, we use a register union to get direct
> access to the lower and upper bytes in the tickets, but unfortunately gcc
> won't generate a direct comparison between the two halves of the register,
> so the generated asm isn't quite as pretty as the hand-coded version.
> However benchmarking shows that this is actually a small improvement in
> runtime performance on some benchmarks, and never a slowdown.
> 
> We also need to make sure there's a barrier at the end of the lock loop
> to make sure that the compiler doesn't move any instructions from within
> the locked region into the region where we don't yet own the lock.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy.fitzhardinge@...rix.com>
> ---
>  arch/x86/include/asm/spinlock.h |   58 +++++++++++++++++++-------------------
>  1 files changed, 29 insertions(+), 29 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/arch/x86/include/asm/spinlock.h b/arch/x86/include/asm/spinlock.h
> index d6d5784..6711d36 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/include/asm/spinlock.h
> +++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/spinlock.h
> @@ -58,21 +58,21 @@
>  #if (NR_CPUS < 256)
>  static __always_inline void __ticket_spin_lock(arch_spinlock_t *lock)
>  {
> -	unsigned short inc = 1 << TICKET_SHIFT;
> -
> -	asm volatile (
> -		LOCK_PREFIX "xaddw %w0, %1\n"
> -		"1:\t"
> -		"cmpb %h0, %b0\n\t"
> -		"je 2f\n\t"
> -		"rep ; nop\n\t"
> -		"movb %1, %b0\n\t"
> -		/* don't need lfence here, because loads are in-order */
> -		"jmp 1b\n"
> -		"2:"
> -		: "+Q" (inc), "+m" (lock->slock)
> -		:
> -		: "memory", "cc");
> +	register union {
> +		struct __raw_tickets tickets;
> +		unsigned short slock;
> +	} inc = { .slock = 1 << TICKET_SHIFT };
> +
> +	asm volatile (LOCK_PREFIX "xaddw %w0, %1\n"
> +		      : "+Q" (inc), "+m" (lock->slock) : : "memory", "cc");
> +
> +	for (;;) {
> +		if (inc.tickets.head == inc.tickets.tail)
> +			return;
> +		cpu_relax();
> +		inc.tickets.head = ACCESS_ONCE(lock->tickets.head);
> +	}
> +	barrier();		/* make sure nothing creeps before the lock is taken */

Isnt this barrier() never reached ?


>  }
>  
>  static __always_inline int __ticket_spin_trylock(arch_spinlock_t *lock)
> @@ -105,22 +105,22 @@ static __always_inline void __ticket_spin_unlock(arch_spinlock_t *lock)
>  static __always_inline void __ticket_spin_lock(arch_spinlock_t *lock)
>  {
>  	unsigned inc = 1 << TICKET_SHIFT;
> -	unsigned tmp;
> +	__ticket_t tmp;
>  
> -	asm volatile(LOCK_PREFIX "xaddl %0, %1\n"
> -		     "movzwl %w0, %2\n\t"
> -		     "shrl $16, %0\n\t"
> -		     "1:\t"
> -		     "cmpl %0, %2\n\t"
> -		     "je 2f\n\t"
> -		     "rep ; nop\n\t"
> -		     "movzwl %1, %2\n\t"
> -		     /* don't need lfence here, because loads are in-order */
> -		     "jmp 1b\n"
> -		     "2:"
> -		     : "+r" (inc), "+m" (lock->slock), "=&r" (tmp)
> -		     :
> -		     : "memory", "cc");
> +	asm volatile(LOCK_PREFIX "xaddl %0, %1\n\t"
> +		     : "+r" (inc), "+m" (lock->slock)
> +		     : : "memory", "cc");
> +
> +	tmp = inc;
> +	inc >>= TICKET_SHIFT;
> +
> +	for (;;) {
> +		if ((__ticket_t)inc == tmp)
> +			return;
> +		cpu_relax();
> +		tmp = ACCESS_ONCE(lock->tickets.head);
> +	}
> +	barrier();		/* make sure nothing creeps before the lock is taken */

same here

>  }
>  
>  static __always_inline int __ticket_spin_trylock(arch_spinlock_t *lock)


--
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/