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]

Message-ID: <CAGQ1y=7YbB_BouYZVJwAZ9crkSMLVCxg8hoqcO_7sXHRrZ90_A@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Fri, 27 Sep 2013 16:54:06 -0700
From:	Jason Low <jason.low2@...com>
To:	Paul McKenney <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc:	Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com>,
	Jason Low <jason.low2@...com>,
	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 4:01 PM, Paul E. McKenney
<paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> Yep.  The previous lock holder's smp_wmb() won't keep either the compiler
> or the CPU from reordering things for the new lock holder.  They could for
> example reorder the critical section to precede the node->locked check,
> which would be very bad.

Paul, Tim, Longman,

How would you like the proposed changes below?

---
Subject: [PATCH] MCS: optimizations and barrier corrections

Delete the node->locked = 1 assignment if the lock is free as it won't be used.

Delete the smp_wmb() in mcs_spin_lock() and add a full memory barrier at the
end of the mcs_spin_lock() function. As Paul McKenney suggested, "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." And in the mcs_spin_unlock(), move the
memory barrier so that it is before the "ACCESS_ONCE(next->locked) = 1;".

Signed-off-by: Jason Low <jason.low2@...com>
Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Signed-off-by: Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com>
---
 include/linux/mcslock.h |    7 +++----
 1 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)

diff --git a/include/linux/mcslock.h b/include/linux/mcslock.h
index 20fd3f0..edd57d2 100644
--- a/include/linux/mcslock.h
+++ b/include/linux/mcslock.h
@@ -26,15 +26,14 @@ void mcs_spin_lock(struct mcs_spin_node **lock,
struct mcs_spin_node *node)

        prev = xchg(lock, node);
        if (likely(prev == NULL)) {
-               /* Lock acquired */
-               node->locked = 1;
+               /* Lock acquired. No need to set node->locked since it
won't be used */
                return;
        }
        ACCESS_ONCE(prev->next) = node;
-       smp_wmb();
        /* Wait until the lock holder passes the lock down */
        while (!ACCESS_ONCE(node->locked))
                arch_mutex_cpu_relax();
+       smp_mb();
 }

 static void mcs_spin_unlock(struct mcs_spin_node **lock, struct
mcs_spin_node *node)
@@ -51,8 +50,8 @@ static void mcs_spin_unlock(struct mcs_spin_node
**lock, struct mcs_spin_node *n
                while (!(next = ACCESS_ONCE(node->next)))
                        arch_mutex_cpu_relax();
        }
-       ACCESS_ONCE(next->locked) = 1;
        smp_wmb();
+       ACCESS_ONCE(next->locked) = 1;
 }

 #endif
-- 
1.7.1
--
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/