linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 1/2] qspinlock: Introducing a 4-byte queue spinlock implementation

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: <52EBEAD5.3000502@hp.com>
Date:	Fri, 31 Jan 2014 13:26:29 -0500
From:	Waiman Long <waiman.long@...com>
To:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
CC:	Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
	linux-arch@...r.kernel.org, x86@...nel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Michel Lespinasse <walken@...gle.com>,
	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
	Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Raghavendra K T <raghavendra.kt@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	George Spelvin <linux@...izon.com>,
	Daniel J Blueman <daniel@...ascale.com>,
	Alexander Fyodorov <halcy@...dex.ru>,
	Aswin Chandramouleeswaran <aswin@...com>,
	Scott J Norton <scott.norton@...com>,
	Thavatchai Makphaibulchoke <thavatchai.makpahibulchoke@...com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/2] qspinlock: Introducing a 4-byte queue spinlock
 implementation

On 01/30/2014 02:28 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 30, 2014 at 11:00:30AM -0800, Tim Chen wrote:
>> On Tue, 2014-01-28 at 13:19 -0500, Waiman Long wrote:
>>
>>> +/**
>>> + * queue_spin_lock_slowpath - acquire the queue spinlock
>>> + * @lock: Pointer to queue spinlock structure
>>> + */
>>> +void queue_spin_lock_slowpath(struct qspinlock *lock)
>>> +{
>>> +	unsigned int cpu_nr, qn_idx;
>>> +	struct qnode *node, *next = NULL;
>>> +	u32 prev_qcode, my_qcode;
>>> +
>>> +	/*
>>> +	 * Get the queue node
>>> +	 */
>>> +	cpu_nr = smp_processor_id();
>>> +	node   = this_cpu_ptr(&qnodes[0]);
>>> +	qn_idx = 0;
>>> +
>>> +	if (unlikely(node->used)) {
>>> +		/*
>>> +		 * This node has been used, try to find an empty queue
>>> +		 * node entry.
>>> +		 */
>>> +		for (qn_idx = 1; qn_idx<  MAX_QNODES; qn_idx++)
>>> +			if (!node[qn_idx].used)
>>> +				break;
>>> +		if (unlikely(qn_idx == MAX_QNODES)) {
>>> +			/*
>>> +			 * This shouldn't happen, print a warning message
>>> +			 *&  busy spinning on the lock.
>>> +			 */
>>> +			printk_sched(
>>> +			  "qspinlock: queue node table exhausted at cpu %d!\n",
>>> +			  cpu_nr);
>>> +			while (!unfair_trylock(lock))
>>> +				arch_mutex_cpu_relax();
>>> +			return;
>>> +		}
>>> +		/* Adjust node pointer */
>>> +		node += qn_idx;
>>> +	}
>>> +
>>> +	/*
>>> +	 * Set up the new cpu code to be exchanged
>>> +	 */
>>> +	my_qcode = SET_QCODE(cpu_nr, qn_idx);
>>> +
>> If we get interrupted here before we have a chance to set the used flag,
>> the interrupt handler could pick up the same qnode if it tries to
>> acquire queued spin lock.  Then we could overwrite the qcode we have set
>> here.
>>
>> Perhaps an exchange operation for the used flag to prevent this race
>> condition?
> I don't get why we need the used thing at all; something like:
>
> struct qna {
> 	int cnt;
> 	struct qnode nodes[4];
> };
>
> DEFINE_PER_CPU(struct qna, qna);
>
> struct qnode *get_qnode(void)
> {
> 	struct qna *qna = this_cpu_ptr(&qna);
>
> 	return qna->nodes[qna->cnt++]; /* RMW */
> }
>
> void put_qnode(struct qnode *qnode)
> {
> 	struct qna *qna = this_cpu_ptr(&qna);
> 	qna->cnt--;
> }
>
> Should do fine, right?

Yes, we can do something like that. However I think put_qnode() needs to 
use atomic dec as well. As a result, we will need 2 additional atomic 
operations per slowpath invocation. The code may look simpler, but I 
don't think it will be faster than what I am currently doing as the 
cases where the used flag is set will be relatively rare.

>
> If we interrupt the RMW above the interrupted context hasn't yet used
> the queue and once we return its free again, so all should be well even
> on load-store archs.
>
> The nodes array might as well be 3, because NMIs should never contend on
> a spinlock, so all we're left with is task, softirq and hardirq context.

I am not so sure about NMI not taking a spinlock. I seem to remember 
seeing code that did that. Actually, I think the NMI code is trying to 
printk something which, in turn, need to acquire a spinlock.

-Longman
--
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/