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: <CA+55aFwH4jkVRug-iuz85Hk8k=ct3dkbiOphQigrsc5bH3EYNQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Thu, 19 Dec 2013 16:12:19 -0800
From:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	Davidlohr Bueso <davidlohr@...com>
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, Dec 19, 2013 at 3:53 PM, Linus Torvalds
<torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
>
> So how could we miss this? Explain to me what the separate counter
> does that isn't done by the spinlock head counter.

Hmm. Trying to answer this myself by looking at the code. And I just
realized that I described things wrong ("spin_contended()" rather than
"spin_is_locked()"). So that was a bug in my description.

One difference is that by avoiding the counter, the "do we have
waiters" is two values rather than one ("is spin locked" + "node list
head is empty"). So there are possible memory ordering issues wrt
reading those two fields, but I don't see it mattering: since you'd
need to read both "not locked" _and_ "list empty", any re-ordering
that shows both of those cases should be able to show the "waiters ==
0" case in the explicit separate counter model.

I don't know why I care, though. For some reason that extra counter
just makes me go "I'm convinced it's not needed", even though I can't
really explain why I should care about it.

        Linus
--
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/