linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH RFC 1/2] qspinlock: Introducing a 4-byte queue spinlock implementation

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-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <51FA3455.1000607@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date:	Thu, 01 Aug 2013 15:41:33 +0530
From:	Raghavendra K T <raghavendra.kt@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
CC:	Waiman Long <Waiman.Long@...com>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
	linux-arch@...r.kernel.org, x86@...nel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Richard Weinberger <richard@....at>,
	Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
	Matt Fleming <matt.fleming@...el.com>,
	Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>,
	Akinobu Mita <akinobu.mita@...il.com>,
	Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>,
	Michel Lespinasse <walken@...gle.com>,
	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
	Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	George Spelvin <linux@...izon.com>,
	Harvey Harrison <harvey.harrison@...il.com>,
	"Chandramouleeswaran, Aswin" <aswin@...com>,
	"Norton, Scott J" <scott.norton@...com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 1/2] qspinlock: Introducing a 4-byte queue spinlock
 implementation

On 08/01/2013 03:10 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 10:37:10PM -0400, Waiman Long wrote:
>
> OK, so over-all I rather like the thing. It might be good to include a
> link to some MCS lock description, sadly wikipedia doesn't have an
> article on the concept :/
>
> http://www.cise.ufl.edu/tr/DOC/REP-1992-71.pdf
>
> That seems like nice (short-ish) write-up of the general algorithm.
>
>> +typedef struct qspinlock {
>> +	union {
>> +		struct {
>> +			u8	locked;		/* Bit lock */
>> +			u8	reserved;
>> +			u16	qcode;		/* Wait queue code */
>> +		};
>> +		u32		qlock;
>> +	};
>> +} arch_spinlock_t;
>
>> +static __always_inline void queue_spin_unlock(struct qspinlock *lock)
>> +{
>> +	barrier();
>> +	ACCESS_ONCE(lock->locked) = 0;
>
> Its always good to add comments with barriers..
>
>> +	smp_wmb();
>> +}
>
>> +/*
>> + * The queue node structure
>> + */
>> +struct qnode {
>> +	struct qnode	*next;
>> +	u8		 wait;		/* Waiting flag	*/
>> +	u8		 used;		/* Used flag	*/
>> +#ifdef	CONFIG_DEBUG_SPINLOCK
>> +	u16		 cpu_nr;	/* CPU number	*/
>> +	void		*lock;		/* Lock address */
>> +#endif
>> +};
>> +
>> +/*
>> + * The 16-bit wait queue code is divided into the following 2 fields:
>> + * Bits 0-1 : queue node index
>> + * Bits 2-15: cpu number + 1
>> + *
>> + * The current implementation will allow a maximum of (1<<14)-1 = 16383 CPUs.
>
> I haven't yet read far enough to figure out why you need the -1 thing,
> but effectively you're restricted to 15k due to this.
>

It is exactly 16k-1 not 15k
That is because CPU_CODE of 1 to 16k represents cpu 0..16k-1



--
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/