linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v6 5/6] MCS Lock: Restructure the MCS lock defines and locking code into its own file

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:	Fri, 27 Sep 2013 13:38:58 -0700
From:	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:	Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com>
Cc:	Waiman Long <Waiman.Long@...com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>,
	Alex Shi <alex.shi@...aro.org>,
	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
	Michel Lespinasse <walken@...gle.com>,
	Davidlohr Bueso <davidlohr.bueso@...com>,
	Matthew R Wilcox <matthew.r.wilcox@...el.com>,
	Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>,
	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
	Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
	Peter Hurley <peter@...leysoftware.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm <linux-mm@...ck.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 5/6] MCS Lock: Restructure the MCS lock defines and
 locking code into its own file

On Fri, Sep 27, 2013 at 12:38:53PM -0700, Tim Chen wrote:
> On Fri, 2013-09-27 at 08:29 -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 03:10:49PM -0700, Tim Chen wrote:
> > > We will need the MCS lock code for doing optimistic spinning for rwsem.
> > > Extracting the MCS code from mutex.c and put into its own file allow us
> > > to reuse this code easily for rwsem.
> > > 
> > > Signed-off-by: Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com>
> > > Signed-off-by: Davidlohr Bueso <davidlohr@...com>
> > > ---
> > >  include/linux/mcslock.h |   58 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > >  kernel/mutex.c          |   58 +++++-----------------------------------------
> > >  2 files changed, 65 insertions(+), 51 deletions(-)
> > >  create mode 100644 include/linux/mcslock.h
> > > 
> > > diff --git a/include/linux/mcslock.h b/include/linux/mcslock.h
> > > new file mode 100644
> > > index 0000000..20fd3f0
> > > --- /dev/null
> > > +++ b/include/linux/mcslock.h
> > > @@ -0,0 +1,58 @@
> > > +/*
> > > + * MCS lock defines
> > > + *
> > > + * This file contains the main data structure and API definitions of MCS lock.
> > > + */
> > > +#ifndef __LINUX_MCSLOCK_H
> > > +#define __LINUX_MCSLOCK_H
> > > +
> > > +struct mcs_spin_node {
> > > +	struct mcs_spin_node *next;
> > > +	int		  locked;	/* 1 if lock acquired */
> > > +};
> > > +
> > > +/*
> > > + * We don't inline mcs_spin_lock() so that perf can correctly account for the
> > > + * time spent in this lock function.
> > > + */
> > > +static noinline
> > > +void mcs_spin_lock(struct mcs_spin_node **lock, struct mcs_spin_node *node)
> > > +{
> > > +	struct mcs_spin_node *prev;
> > > +
> > > +	/* Init node */
> > > +	node->locked = 0;
> > > +	node->next   = NULL;
> > > +
> > > +	prev = xchg(lock, node);
> > > +	if (likely(prev == NULL)) {
> > > +		/* Lock acquired */
> > > +		node->locked = 1;
> > > +		return;
> > > +	}
> > > +	ACCESS_ONCE(prev->next) = node;
> > > +	smp_wmb();
> 
> BTW, is the above memory barrier necessary?  It seems like the xchg
> instruction already provided a memory barrier.
> 
> Now if we made the changes that Jason suggested:
> 
> 
>         /* Init node */
> -       node->locked = 0;
>         node->next   = NULL;
> 
>         prev = xchg(lock, node);
>         if (likely(prev == NULL)) {
>                 /* Lock acquired */
> -               node->locked = 1;
>                 return;
>         }
> +       node->locked = 0;
>         ACCESS_ONCE(prev->next) = node;
>         smp_wmb();
> 
> We are probably still okay as other cpus do not read the value of
> node->locked, which is a local variable.

I don't immediately see the need for the smp_wmb() in either case.

> Tim
> 
> > > +	/* Wait until the lock holder passes the lock down */
> > > +	while (!ACCESS_ONCE(node->locked))
> > > +		arch_mutex_cpu_relax();

However, you do need a full memory barrier here in order to ensure that
you see the effects of the previous lock holder's critical section.

							Thanx, Paul

> > > +}
> > > +
> > > +static void mcs_spin_unlock(struct mcs_spin_node **lock, struct mcs_spin_node *node)
> > > +{
> > > +	struct mcs_spin_node *next = ACCESS_ONCE(node->next);
> > > +
> > > +	if (likely(!next)) {
> > > +		/*
> > > +		 * Release the lock by setting it to NULL
> > > +		 */
> > > +		if (cmpxchg(lock, node, NULL) == node)
> > > +			return;
> > > +		/* Wait until the next pointer is set */
> > > +		while (!(next = ACCESS_ONCE(node->next)))
> > > +			arch_mutex_cpu_relax();
> > > +	}
> > > +	ACCESS_ONCE(next->locked) = 1;
> > > +	smp_wmb();
> > 
> > Shouldn't the memory barrier precede the "ACCESS_ONCE(next->locked) = 1;"?
> > Maybe in an "else" clause of the prior "if" statement, given that the
> > cmpxchg() does it otherwise.
> > 
> > Otherwise, in the case where the "if" conditionn is false, the critical
> > section could bleed out past the unlock.
> > 
> > 							Thanx, Paul
> > 
> 
> 

--
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/