linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 07/13] rwsem: use cmpxchg for trying to steal write lock

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: <1364489046.3559.14.camel@thor.lan>
Date:	Thu, 28 Mar 2013 12:44:06 -0400
From:	Peter Hurley <peter@...leysoftware.com>
To:	Michel Lespinasse <walken@...gle.com>
Cc:	Alex Shi <alex.shi@...el.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
	David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Yuanhan Liu <yuanhan.liu@...ux.intel.com>,
	Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
	Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 07/13] rwsem: use cmpxchg for trying to steal write
 lock

On Fri, 2013-03-15 at 03:54 -0700, Michel Lespinasse wrote:
> Using rwsem_atomic_update to try stealing the write lock forced us to
> undo the adjustment in the failure path. We can have simpler and faster
> code by using cmpxchg instead.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Michel Lespinasse <walken@...gle.com>
> 
> ---
>  lib/rwsem.c | 26 ++++++--------------------
>  1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 20 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/lib/rwsem.c b/lib/rwsem.c
> index 2360bf204098..64c2dc007be2 100644
> --- a/lib/rwsem.c
> +++ b/lib/rwsem.c
> @@ -142,25 +142,6 @@ __rwsem_do_wake(struct rw_semaphore *sem, int wake_type)
>  	return sem;
>  }
>  
> -/* Try to get write sem, caller holds sem->wait_lock: */
> -static int try_get_writer_sem(struct rw_semaphore *sem)
> -{
> -	long oldcount, adjustment;
> -
> -	adjustment = RWSEM_ACTIVE_WRITE_BIAS;
> -	if (list_is_singular(&sem->wait_list))
> -		adjustment -= RWSEM_WAITING_BIAS;
> -
> -try_again_write:
> -	oldcount = rwsem_atomic_update(adjustment, sem) - adjustment;
> -	if (!(oldcount & RWSEM_ACTIVE_MASK))
> -		return 1;
> -	/* some one grabbed the sem already */
> -	if (rwsem_atomic_update(-adjustment, sem) & RWSEM_ACTIVE_MASK)
> -		return 0;
> -	goto try_again_write;
> -}
> -
>  /*
>   * wait for the read lock to be granted
>   */
> @@ -236,7 +217,12 @@ struct rw_semaphore __sched *rwsem_down_write_failed(struct rw_semaphore *sem)
>  	while (true) {
>  		set_task_state(tsk, TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE);
>  
> -		if (try_get_writer_sem(sem))
> +		/* Try acquiring the write lock. */
> +		count = RWSEM_ACTIVE_WRITE_BIAS;
> +		if (!list_is_singular(&sem->wait_list))
> +			count += RWSEM_WAITING_BIAS;
> +		if (cmpxchg(&sem->count, RWSEM_WAITING_BIAS, count) ==
> +							RWSEM_WAITING_BIAS)

This is just my opinion but I think this is way more readable if this
stays in try_get_writer_sem() and you change that to static inline
rather than inlining here. Especially because 9/13 adds a scope.

>  			break;
>  
>  		raw_spin_unlock_irq(&sem->wait_lock);


--
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/