linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] percpu-rwsem: use barrier in unlock path

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: <Pine.LNX.4.64.1210181545520.32376@file.rdu.redhat.com>
Date:	Thu, 18 Oct 2012 15:56:46 -0400 (EDT)
From:	Mikulas Patocka <mpatocka@...hat.com>
To:	Lai Jiangshan <laijs@...fujitsu.com>
cc:	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-arch@...r.kernel.org,
	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] percpu-rwsem: use barrier in unlock path

This patch looks sensible.

I'd apply either this or my previous patch that adds synchronize_rcu() to 
percpu_up_write.

This patch avoids the memory barrier on non-x86 cpus in percpu_up_read, so 
it is faster than the previous approach.

Mikulas


On Thu, 18 Oct 2012, Lai Jiangshan wrote:

> ---------------
> 
> a very draft example of paired-mb()s is here:
> 
> 
> diff --git a/include/linux/percpu-rwsem.h b/include/linux/percpu-rwsem.h
> index cf80f7e..84a93c0 100644
> --- a/include/linux/percpu-rwsem.h
> +++ b/include/linux/percpu-rwsem.h
> @@ -12,6 +12,14 @@ struct percpu_rw_semaphore {
>  	struct mutex mtx;
>  };
>  
> +#if 1
> +#define light_mb() barrier()
> +#define heavy_mb() synchronize_sched()
> +#else
> +#define light_mb() smp_mb()
> +#define heavy_mb() smp_mb();
> +#endif
> +
>  static inline void percpu_down_read(struct percpu_rw_semaphore *p)
>  {
>  	rcu_read_lock();
> @@ -24,22 +32,12 @@ static inline void percpu_down_read(struct percpu_rw_semaphore *p)
>  	}
>  	this_cpu_inc(*p->counters);
>  	rcu_read_unlock();
> +	light_mb(); /* A, between read of p->locked and read of data, paired with D */
>  }
>  
>  static inline void percpu_up_read(struct percpu_rw_semaphore *p)
>  {
> -	/*
> -	 * On X86, write operation in this_cpu_dec serves as a memory unlock
> -	 * barrier (i.e. memory accesses may be moved before the write, but
> -	 * no memory accesses are moved past the write).
> -	 * On other architectures this may not be the case, so we need smp_mb()
> -	 * there.
> -	 */
> -#if defined(CONFIG_X86) && (!defined(CONFIG_X86_PPRO_FENCE) && !defined(CONFIG_X86_OOSTORE))
> -	barrier();
> -#else
> -	smp_mb();
> -#endif
> +	light_mb(); /* B, between read of the data and write to p->counter, paired with C */
>  	this_cpu_dec(*p->counters);
>  }
>  
> @@ -61,11 +59,12 @@ static inline void percpu_down_write(struct percpu_rw_semaphore *p)
>  	synchronize_rcu();
>  	while (__percpu_count(p->counters))
>  		msleep(1);
> -	smp_rmb(); /* paired with smp_mb() in percpu_sem_up_read() */
> +	heavy_mb(); /* C, between read of p->counter and write to data, paired with B */
>  }
>  
>  static inline void percpu_up_write(struct percpu_rw_semaphore *p)
>  {
> +	heavy_mb(); /* D, between write to data and write to p->locked, paired with A */
>  	p->locked = false;
>  	mutex_unlock(&p->mtx);
>  }
> 
--
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/