linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] sched,x86: optimize switch

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:	Wed, 31 Jul 2013 16:14:09 -0700
From:	Paul Turner <pjt@...gle.com>
To:	Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>
Cc:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	jmario@...hat.com, Peter Anvin <hpa@...or.com>, dzickus@...hat.com,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sched,x86: optimize switch_mm for multi-threaded workloads

We attached the following explanatory comment to our version of the patch:

/*
* In the common case (two user threads sharing mm
* switching) the bit will be set; avoid doing a write
* (via atomic test & set) unless we have to.  This is
* safe, because no other CPU ever writes to our bit
* in the mask, and interrupts are off (so we can't
* take a TLB IPI here.)  If we don't do this, then
* switching threads will pingpong the cpumask
* cacheline.
*/

On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 4:12 PM, Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com> wrote:
> On 07/31/2013 06:46 PM, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Jul 31, 2013 3:39 PM, "Rik van Riel" <riel@...hat.com
>>
>> <mailto:riel@...hat.com>> wrote:
>>  >
>>  > On 07/31/2013 06:21 PM, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>>  >>
>>  >> Ummm.. The race is to the testing of the bit, not setting. The testing
>>  >> of the bit is not valid before we have set the tlb state, AFAIK.
>>  >
>>  >
>>  > I believe the bit is cleared and set by the current CPU.
>>
>> Yes, but we need to be careful with interrupts.
>>
>>
>>  > Interrupts are blocked inside switch_mm, so I think we
>>  > are safe.
>>
>> Are they? I thought we removed all that.
>
>
> context_switch() shows that the runqueue lock (which is an irq
> lock) is released, and irqs re-enabled, by the next task, after
> switch_to(), in finish_lock_switch(), called from finish_task_switch()
>
>> Note that switch_mm gets called for activate_mm too, or something.
>
>
> Good catch, though it looks like activate_mm is only called from
> exec_mmap, with the new mm as its argument.  While the new mm can
> have pages in memory yet, it has never been run so there should
> be nothing in the TLB yet for the new mm.
>
> This is subtler than I thought, but it does appear to be safe.
>
>
> --
> All rights reversed
> --
> 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/
--
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/