linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v5 tip/core/locking 6/7] locking: Add an smp_mb__after_unlock

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20131210052641.GK4208@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date:	Mon, 9 Dec 2013 21:26:41 -0800
From:	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:	Josh Triplett <josh@...htriplett.org>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, mingo@...nel.org,
	laijs@...fujitsu.com, dipankar@...ibm.com,
	akpm@...ux-foundation.org, mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com,
	niv@...ibm.com, tglx@...utronix.de, peterz@...radead.org,
	rostedt@...dmis.org, dhowells@...hat.com, edumazet@...gle.com,
	darren@...art.com, fweisbec@...il.com, sbw@....edu,
	Linux-Arch <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 tip/core/locking 6/7] locking: Add an
 smp_mb__after_unlock_lock() for UNLOCK+LOCK barrier

On Mon, Dec 09, 2013 at 05:34:17PM -0800, Josh Triplett wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 09, 2013 at 05:28:02PM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
> > 
> > The Linux kernel has traditionally required that an UNLOCK+LOCK pair
> > act as a full memory barrier when either (1) that UNLOCK+LOCK pair
> > was executed by the same CPU or task, or (2) the same lock variable
> > was used for the UNLOCK and LOCK.  It now seems likely that very few
> > places in the kernel rely on this full-memory-barrier semantic, and
> > with the advent of queued locks, providing this semantic either requires
> > complex reasoning, or for some architectures, added overhead.
> > 
> > This commit therefore adds a smp_mb__after_unlock_lock(), which may be
> > placed after a LOCK primitive to restore the full-memory-barrier semantic.
> > All definitions are currently no-ops, but will be upgraded for some
> > architectures when queued locks arrive.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
> > Cc: Linux-Arch <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>
> > Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>
> > Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
> > Cc: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
> > Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
> 
> It seems quite unfortunate that this isn't in some common location, and
> then only overridden by architectures that need to do so.

I was thinking that include/asm-generic/barrier.h was the place, but
it is all-or-nothing, used by UP architectures, from what I can see.
I figured that if there is such a common location, posting this patch
might flush it out.  I am not sure that this single definition is worth
the creation of a common place -- or even this definition combined with
smp_read_barrier_depends().

> More importantly: you document this earlier in the patch series than you
> introduce it.

Fair point, I reversed the order of those two patches.

							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/