linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v5 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: <1389116450.5785.16.camel@dvhart-mobl4.amr.corp.intel.com>
Date:	Tue, 07 Jan 2014 09:40:50 -0800
From:	Darren Hart <dvhart@...ux.intel.com>
To:	Davidlohr Bueso <davidlohr@...com>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, mingo@...nel.org,
	peterz@...radead.org, tglx@...utronix.de,
	paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, efault@....de, jeffm@...e.com,
	torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, jason.low2@...com,
	Waiman.Long@...com, tom.vaden@...com, scott.norton@...com,
	aswin@...com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 4/4] futex: Avoid taking hb lock if nothing to wakeup

On Mon, 2014-01-06 at 19:29 -0800, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
> On Mon, 2014-01-06 at 12:52 -0800, Darren Hart wrote:
> > On Thu, 2014-01-02 at 07:05 -0800, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:

 
> > I thought someone, Peter Z?, had commented on these CONFIG_SMP bits. Are
> > they really necessary? Does smp_mb__after_atomic_inc() and smp_rmb() not
> > already just do the right thing as far as we're concerned here?
> 
> I don't think so. Thomas and I agreed that this was in fact the way to
> go. I rechecked old email and didn't notice any objections to
> CONFIG_SMP. Also for things like hb_waiters_pending we definitely need
> it.

I'll happily defer to Thomas here.
 
> > 
> > Given the subtlety of the implementation - I think it would be good to
> > explicitly annotate the get_futex_key() call site in futex_wake() as
> > providing the MB (B). 
> > 
> > Similar comment for futex_wait() and futex_requeue() for MB (A).
> > 
> > These will also raise the appropriate red flags for people looking to
> > optimize or modify these paths in the future. It would be good to have
> > it in the top level futex_* function to make the MB placement and
> > relationship explicitly clear.
> > 
> 
> Something quite similar was already there for v2 but PeterZ's feedback
> made me update the main documentation at the top of futex.c to as it is
> now...

I don't want to block this any longer - but as complicated and
non-obvious as this is, I would *MUCH* prefer we document the memory
barrier point in the top level algorithm. If Peter/Thomas/Linus/Ingo
object, so be it, but otherwise let's err on the side of overly explicit
documentation.

Peter/Thomas/Linus/Ingo: Do any of you object to adding the three memory
barrier comments to the high level functions? futex_wait, futex_wake,
futex_requeue?

-- 
Darren Hart
Intel Open Source Technology Center
Yocto Project - Linux Kernel


--
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/