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:	Mon, 10 Oct 2011 13:00:50 +0200
From:	Stephan Diestelhorst <stephan.diestelhorst@....com>
To:	<xen-devel@...ts.xensource.com>
CC:	Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>,
	Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy.fitzhardinge@...rix.com>,
	Nick Piggin <npiggin@...nel.dk>, KVM <kvm@...r.kernel.org>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	the arch/x86 maintainers <x86@...nel.org>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@...hat.com>,
	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>, Avi Kivity <avi@...hat.com>,
	Jan Beulich <JBeulich@...e.com>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 00/10] [PATCH RFC V2] Paravirtualized ticketlocks

On Thursday 06 October 2011, 13:40:01 Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
> On 10/06/2011 07:04 AM, Stephan Diestelhorst wrote:
> > On Wednesday 28 September 2011, 14:49:56 Linus Torvalds wrote:
> >> Which certainly should *work*, but from a conceptual standpoint, isn't
> >> it just *much* nicer to say "we actually know *exactly* what the upper
> >> bits were".
> > Well, we really do NOT want atomicity here. What we really rather want
> > is sequentiality: free the lock, make the update visible, and THEN
> > check if someone has gone sleeping on it.
> >
> > Atomicity only conveniently enforces that the three do not happen in a
> > different order (with the store becoming visible after the checking
> > load).
> >
> > This does not have to be atomic, since spurious wakeups are not a
> > problem, in particular not with the FIFO-ness of ticket locks.
> >
> > For that the fence, additional atomic etc. would be IMHO much cleaner
> > than the crazy overflow logic.
> 
> All things being equal I'd prefer lock-xadd just because its easier to
> analyze the concurrency for, crazy overflow tests or no.  But if
> add+mfence turned out to be a performance win, then that would obviously
> tip the scales.
> 
> However, it looks like locked xadd is also has better performance:  on
> my Sandybridge laptop (2 cores, 4 threads), the add+mfence is 20% slower
> than locked xadd, so that pretty much settles it unless you think
> there'd be a dramatic difference on an AMD system.

Indeed, the fences are usually slower than locked RMWs, in particular,
if you do not need to add an instruction. I originally missed that
amazing stunt the GCC pulled off with replacing the branch with carry
flag magic. It seems that two twisted minds have found each other
here :)

One of my concerns was adding a branch in here... so that is settled,
and if everybody else feels like this is easier to reason about...
go ahead :) (I'll keep my itch to myself then.)

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/