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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <4CD18213.4030105@goop.org>
Date:	Wed, 03 Nov 2010 11:38:59 -0400
From:	Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>
To:	Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
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

On 11/03/2010 11:11 AM, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> 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 ?

Sorry, a later patch makes this clearer.  I should have folded it in.

    J
--
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/