linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/3] x86: Remove cmpxchg from i386 NMI nesting code

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: <1339176975.13377.56.camel@gandalf.stny.rr.com>
Date:	Fri, 08 Jun 2012 13:36:15 -0400
From:	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To:	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] x86: Remove cmpxchg from i386 NMI nesting code

On Fri, 2012-06-08 at 10:28 -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> On 06/08/2012 09:41 AM, Steven Rostedt wrote:
>  
> >>  
> >>  #define nmi_nesting_postprocess()                                      \
> >>         do {                                                            \
> >> -               if (cmpxchg(&__get_cpu_var(nmi_state),                  \
> >> -                   NMI_EXECUTING, NMI_NOT_RUNNING) != NMI_EXECUTING)   \
> >> +               if (!local_dec_and_test(&__get_cpu_var(nmi_state)))     \
> > 
> > Now this is where I think the patch helps. I'm almost certain that
> > local_dec_and_test is faster than a cmpxchg by many cycles. Especially
> > on i386.
> > 
> 
> On i386 it's infinite, but again, I don't think the code will ever be
> exercised on i386.  I'm much more concerned about performance on current
> processors.

I'm not worried about non i386 here. Some context missing from the patch
is that this code is surrounded by:

#ifdef CONFIG_X86_32

[...]

#else

The '#else' part does something completely different, as this work is
done in the assembly handler on x86_64.

And yes, this code is executed on i386 (well when I boot my x86_64 into
an i386 kernel it does).


> 
> But yes, local_dec_and_test should at least not be more expensive.  Even
> better, use this_cpu_dec_return().

Oh! That would make this much better! I'll update the patch set.

Thanks!

-- Steve




--
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/