linux-kernel - Re: + atomic-improve-atomic_inc_unless_negative-atomic_dec_unless

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:	Thu, 21 Mar 2013 18:08:27 +0100
From:	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To:	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc:	Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
	Ming Lei <tom.leiming@...il.com>, Shaohua Li <shli@...nel.org>,
	Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: +
	atomic-improve-atomic_inc_unless_negative-atomic_dec_unless_positive
	.patch added to -mm tree

On 03/17, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
>
> On Sat, Mar 16, 2013 at 07:30:22PM +0100, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> >
> > > The rule is that if an atomic primitive returns non-void, then there is
> > > a full memory barrier before and after.
> >
> > This case is documented...
> >
> > > This applies to primitives
> > > returning boolean as well, with atomic_dec_and_test() setting this
> > > precedent from what I can see.
> >
> > I don't think this is the "fair" comparison. Unlike atomic_add_unless(),
> > atomic_dec_and_test() always changes the memory even if it "fails".
> >
> > If atomic_add_unless() returns 0, nothing was changed and if we add
> > the barrier it is not clear what it should be paired with.
> >
> > But OK. I have to agree that "keep the rules simple" makes sense, so
> > we should change atomic_add_unless() as well.
>
> Agreed!

OK... since nobody volunteered to make a patch, what do you think about
the change below?

It should "fix" atomic_add_unless() (only on x86) and optimize
atomic_inc/dec_unless.

With this change atomic_*_unless() can do the unnecessary mb() after
cmpxchg() fails, but I think this case is very unlikely.

And, in the likely case atomic_inc/dec_unless avoids the 1st cmpxchg()
which in most cases just reads the memory for the next cmpxchg().

Oleg.

--- x/arch/x86/include/asm/atomic.h
+++ x/arch/x86/include/asm/atomic.h
@@ -212,15 +212,12 @@ static inline int atomic_xchg(atomic_t *
 static inline int __atomic_add_unless(atomic_t *v, int a, int u)
 {
 	int c, old;
-	c = atomic_read(v);
-	for (;;) {
-		if (unlikely(c == (u)))
-			break;
-		old = atomic_cmpxchg((v), c, c + (a));
+	for (c = atomic_read(v); c != u; c = old) {
+		old = atomic_cmpxchg(v, c, c + a);
 		if (likely(old == c))
-			break;
-		c = old;
+			return c;
 	}
+	smp_mb();
 	return c;
 }
 
--- x/include/linux/atomic.h
+++ x/include/linux/atomic.h
@@ -64,11 +64,12 @@ static inline int atomic_inc_not_zero_hi
 static inline int atomic_inc_unless_negative(atomic_t *p)
 {
 	int v, v1;
-	for (v = 0; v >= 0; v = v1) {
+	for (v = atomic_read(p); v >= 0; v = v1) {
 		v1 = atomic_cmpxchg(p, v, v + 1);
 		if (likely(v1 == v))
 			return 1;
 	}
+	smp_mb();
 	return 0;
 }
 #endif
@@ -77,11 +78,12 @@ static inline int atomic_inc_unless_nega
 static inline int atomic_dec_unless_positive(atomic_t *p)
 {
 	int v, v1;
-	for (v = 0; v <= 0; v = v1) {
+	for (atomic_read(p); v <= 0; v = v1) {
 		v1 = atomic_cmpxchg(p, v, v - 1);
 		if (likely(v1 == v))
 			return 1;
 	}
+	smp_mb();
 	return 0;
 }
 #endif

--
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/