linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 4/4] futex: Avoid taking hb lock if nothing to wakeup

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: <1387520039.2704.11.camel@buesod1.americas.hpqcorp.net>
Date:	Thu, 19 Dec 2013 22:13:59 -0800
From:	Davidlohr Bueso <davidlohr@...com>
To:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
	Darren Hart <dvhart@...ux.intel.com>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Paul McKenney <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>, Jeff Mahoney <jeffm@...e.com>,
	Jason Low <jason.low2@...com>,
	Waiman Long <Waiman.Long@...com>, Tom Vaden <tom.vaden@...com>,
	"Norton, Scott J" <scott.norton@...com>,
	"Chandramouleeswaran, Aswin" <aswin@...com>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 4/4] futex: Avoid taking hb lock if nothing to wakeup

On Thu, 2013-12-19 at 19:13 -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 6:22 PM, Davidlohr Bueso <davidlohr@...com> wrote:
> >
> > Ok so when I replied I was thinking about the plist really and not the
> > hb->lock ticket counter. Yeah, what you propose does make sense for
> > waiters. However in wake paths we have to decrement  the counter nwake
> > times (per each call to __unqueue_futex()), and if we rely on the
> > ticket, then we do it only once, in the unlock, so the counter doesn't
> > reflect the actual waitqueue size. Or am I missing something with ticket
> > spinlocks (I'm not very familiar with that code)?
> 
> So that's why I suggested checking the ticket lock _and_ the state of
> the node list.
> 
> The ticket lock state gives you the racy window before the entry has
> actually been added to the node list, and then after the lock has been
> released, the fact that the list isn't empty gives you the rest.

Yep, I'm starting to get around the idea now.

> I think we might have to order the two reads with an smp_rmb - making
> sure that we check the lock state first - but I think it should be
> otherwise pretty solid.

Yes, I don't see any guarantees otherwise.

> 
> And maybe there is some reason it doesn't work, but I'd really like to
> understand it (and I'd like to avoid the extra atomics for the waiters
> count if it at all can be avoided)

Other than the lock_ptr assignment I don't see much difference with what
you suggest. Since no wake paths use lock_ptr until after plist_del, and
we've already taken the lock way before then, it doesn't play a role in
what we're discussing.

I've put you suggestion (now corrected with spin_is_locked) and works
just as fine as with atomics. It's surviving my laptop and benchmarks on
a large system. I will wait to see if there are any concerns other might
have before sending another version of this patchset.

Thanks,
Davidlohr

--
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/