linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v5 04/45] percpu_rwlock: Implement the core design of Per-CPU Reader-Writer Locks

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: <5117FE74.4020000@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date:	Mon, 11 Feb 2013 01:39:24 +0530
From:	"Srivatsa S. Bhat" <srivatsa.bhat@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
CC:	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	tglx@...utronix.de, peterz@...radead.org, tj@...nel.org,
	rusty@...tcorp.com.au, mingo@...nel.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
	namhyung@...nel.org, rostedt@...dmis.org,
	wangyun@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, xiaoguangrong@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
	rjw@...k.pl, sbw@....edu, fweisbec@...il.com,
	linux@....linux.org.uk, nikunj@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
	linux-pm@...r.kernel.org, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
	linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 04/45] percpu_rwlock: Implement the core design of
 Per-CPU Reader-Writer Locks

On 02/11/2013 01:20 AM, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> On 02/11, Srivatsa S. Bhat wrote:
>>
>> On 02/10/2013 11:36 PM, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
>>>>> +static void announce_writer_inactive(struct percpu_rwlock *pcpu_rwlock)
>>>>> +{
>>>>> +   unsigned int cpu;
>>>>> +
>>>>> +   drop_writer_signal(pcpu_rwlock, smp_processor_id());
>>>>
>>>> Why do we drop ourselves twice?  More to the point, why is it important to
>>>> drop ourselves first?
>>>
>>> And don't we need mb() _before_ we clear ->writer_signal ?
>>>
>>
>> Oh, right! Or, how about moving announce_writer_inactive() to _after_
>> write_unlock()?
> 
> Not sure this will help... but, either way it seems we have another
> problem...
> 
> percpu_rwlock tries to be "generic". This means we should "ignore" its
> usage in hotplug, and _write_lock should not race with _write_unlock.
> 

Yes, good point!

> IOW. Suppose that _write_unlock clears ->writer_signal. We need to ensure
> that this can't race with another write which wants to set this flag.
> Perhaps it should be counter as well, and it should be protected by
> the same ->global_rwlock, but _write_lock() should drop it before
> sync_all_readers() and then take it again?

Hmm, or we could just add an extra mb() like you suggested, and keep it
simple...

> 
>>>>> +static inline void sync_reader(struct percpu_rwlock *pcpu_rwlock,
>>>>> +			       unsigned int cpu)
>>>>> +{
>>>>> +	smp_rmb(); /* Paired with smp_[w]mb() in percpu_read_[un]lock() */
>>>>
>>>> As I understand it, the purpose of this memory barrier is to ensure
>>>> that the stores in drop_writer_signal() happen before the reads from
>>>> ->reader_refcnt in reader_uses_percpu_refcnt(), thus preventing the
>>>> race between a new reader attempting to use the fastpath and this writer
>>>> acquiring the lock.  Unless I am confused, this must be smp_mb() rather
>>>> than smp_rmb().
>>>
>>> And note that before sync_reader() we call announce_writer_active() which
>>> already adds mb() before sync_all_readers/sync_reader, so this rmb() looks
>>> unneeded.
>>>
>>
>> My intention was to help the writer see the ->reader_refcnt drop to zero
>> ASAP; hence I used smp_wmb() at reader and smp_rmb() here at the writer.
> 
> Hmm, interesting... Not sure, but can't really comment. However I can
> answer your next question:
>

Paul told me in another mail that I was expecting too much out of memory
barriers, like increasing the speed of electrons and what not ;-)
[ It would have been cool though, if it had such magical powers :P ]
 
>> Please correct me if my understanding of memory barriers is wrong here..
> 
> Who? Me??? No we have paulmck for that ;)
>

Haha ;-)

Regards,
Srivatsa S. Bhat

--
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/