linux-kernel - Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 00/10] [PATCH RFC V2] Paravirtualized ticketlocks

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]

Date:	Wed, 28 Sep 2011 20:08:16 +0200
From:	Stephan Diestelhorst <stephan.diestelhorst@....com>
To:	Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>
CC:	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Jan Beulich <JBeulich@...e.com>,
	Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy.fitzhardinge@...rix.com>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Nick Piggin <npiggin@...nel.dk>,
	the arch/x86 maintainers <x86@...nel.org>,
	"xen-devel@...ts.xensource.com" <xen-devel@...ts.xensource.com>,
	Avi Kivity <avi@...hat.com>,
	Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@...hat.com>,
	KVM <kvm@...r.kernel.org>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 00/10] [PATCH RFC V2] Paravirtualized ticketlocks

On Wednesday 28 September 2011 19:50:08 Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
> On 09/28/2011 10:24 AM, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> > On 09/28/2011 10:22 AM, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> >> On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 9:47 AM, Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org> wrote:
> >>> Could do something like:
> >>>
> >>>        if (ticket->head >= 254)
> >>>                prev = xadd(&ticket->head_tail, 0xff02);
> >>>        else
> >>>                prev = xadd(&ticket->head_tail, 0x0002);
> >>>
> >>> to compensate for the overflow.
> >> Oh wow. You havge an even more twisted mind than I do.
> >>
> >> I guess that will work, exactly because we control "head" and thus can
> >> know about the overflow in the low byte. But boy is that ugly ;)
> >>
> >> But at least you wouldn't need to do the loop with cmpxchg. So it's
> >> twisted and ugly, but migth be practical.
> >>
> > I suspect it should be coded as -254 in order to use a short immediate
> > if that is even possible...
> 
> I'm about to test:
> 
> static __always_inline void arch_spin_unlock(arch_spinlock_t *lock)
> {
> 	if (TICKET_SLOWPATH_FLAG && unlikely(arch_static_branch(&paravirt_ticketlocks_enabled))) {
> 		arch_spinlock_t prev;
> 		__ticketpair_t inc = TICKET_LOCK_INC;
> 
> 		if (lock->tickets.head >= (1 << TICKET_SHIFT) - TICKET_LOCK_INC)
> 			inc += -1 << TICKET_SHIFT;
> 
> 		prev.head_tail = xadd(&lock->head_tail, inc);
> 
> 		if (prev.tickets.tail & TICKET_SLOWPATH_FLAG)
> 			__ticket_unlock_slowpath(lock, prev);
> 	} else
> 		__ticket_unlock_release(lock);
> }
> 
> Which, frankly, is not something I particularly want to put my name to.

I must have missed the part when this turned into the propose-the-
craziest-way-that-this-still-works.contest :)

What is wrong with converting the original addb into a lock addb? The
crazy wrap around tricks add a conditional and lots of headache. The
lock addb/w is clean. We are paying an atomic in both cases, so I just
don't see the benefit of the second solution.

Stephan
-- 
Stephan Diestelhorst, AMD Operating System Research Center
stephan.diestelhorst@....com, Tel. +49 (0)351 448 356 719

Advanced Micro Devices GmbH
Einsteinring 24
85609 Aschheim
Germany

Geschaeftsfuehrer: Alberto Bozzo;
Sitz: Dornach, Gemeinde Aschheim, Landkreis Muenchen
Registergericht Muenchen, HRB Nr. 43632, WEEE-Reg-Nr: DE 12919551 

--
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/