linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v5 tip/core/locking 5/7] Documentation/memory-barriers.txt: Downgrade UNLOCK+LOCK

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: <20131210013231.GA24138@jtriplet-mobl1>
Date:	Mon, 9 Dec 2013 17:32:31 -0800
From:	Josh Triplett <josh@...htriplett.org>
To:	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
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,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
	Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com>,
	Waiman Long <waiman.long@...com>,
	Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>,
	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
	Michel Lespinasse <walken@...gle.com>,
	Davidlohr Bueso <davidlohr.bueso@...com>,
	Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
	Peter Hurley <peter@...leysoftware.com>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
	Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 tip/core/locking 5/7]
 Documentation/memory-barriers.txt: Downgrade UNLOCK+LOCK

On Mon, Dec 09, 2013 at 05:28:01PM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
> 
> Historically, an UNLOCK+LOCK pair executed by one CPU, by one task,
> or on a given lock variable has implied a full memory barrier.  In a
> recent LKML thread, the wisdom of this historical approach was called
> into question: http://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-mm/msg65653.html,
> in part due to the memory-order complexities of low-handoff-overhead
> queued locks on x86 systems.
> 
> This patch therefore removes this guarantee from the documentation, and
> further documents how to restore it via a new smp_mb__after_unlock_lock()
> primitive.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
> 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>
> Cc: Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>
> Cc: Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com>
> Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
> Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
> Cc: Waiman Long <waiman.long@...com>
> Cc: Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>
> Cc: Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
> Cc: Michel Lespinasse <walken@...gle.com>
> Cc: Davidlohr Bueso <davidlohr.bueso@...com>
> Cc: Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>
> Cc: Peter Hurley <peter@...leysoftware.com>
> Cc: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
> Cc: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
> Cc: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>
> ---
>  Documentation/memory-barriers.txt | 51 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------
>  1 file changed, 44 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/Documentation/memory-barriers.txt b/Documentation/memory-barriers.txt
> index a0763db314ff..efb791d33e5a 100644
> --- a/Documentation/memory-barriers.txt
> +++ b/Documentation/memory-barriers.txt
> @@ -1626,7 +1626,10 @@ for each construct.  These operations all imply certain barriers:
>       operation has completed.
>  
>       Memory operations issued before the LOCK may be completed after the LOCK
> -     operation has completed.
> +     operation has completed.  An smp_mb__before_spinlock(), combined
> +     with a following LOCK, acts as an smp_wmb().  Note the "w",
> +     this is smp_wmb(), not smp_mb().  The smp_mb__before_spinlock()
> +     primitive is free on many architectures.

Gah.  That seems highly error-prone; why isn't that
"smp_wmb__before_spinlock()"?

- Josh Triplett
--
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/