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]
Date:	Thu, 6 Feb 2014 19:08:26 +0100
From:	Peter Zijlstra <>
To:	Torsten Duwe <>
Cc:	Benjamin Herrenschmidt <>,
	Paul Mackerras <>,
	Anton Blanchard <>,
	"Paul E. McKenney" <>,
	Ingo Molnar <>,,
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Convert powerpc simple spinlocks into ticket locks

On Thu, Feb 06, 2014 at 06:37:27PM +0100, Torsten Duwe wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 06, 2014 at 05:38:37PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 06, 2014 at 11:37:37AM +0100, Torsten Duwe wrote:
> > > x86 has them, MIPS has them, ARM has them, even ia64 has them:
> > > ticket locks. They reduce memory bus and cache pressure especially
> > > for contended spinlocks, increasing performance.
> > > 
> > > This patch is a port of the x86 spin locks, mostly written in C,
> > > to the powerpc, introducing inline asm where needed. The pSeries
> > > directed yield for vCPUs is taken care of by an additional "holder"
> > > field in the lock.
> > > 
> > 
> > A few questions; what's with the ppc64 holder thing? Not having a 32bit
> > spinlock_t is sad.
> I must admit that I haven't tested the patch on non-pseries ppc64 nor on
> ppc32. Only ppc64 has the ldarx and I tried to atomically replace the 
> holder along with the locks. That might prove unneccessary.

But what is the holder for? Can't we do away with that field?

> > Can you pair lwarx with sthcx ? I couldn't immediately find the answer
> > in the PowerISA doc. If so I think you can do better by being able to
> > atomically load both tickets but only storing the head without affecting
> > the tail.
> V2.06b, Book II, Chapter 3, "sthcx" says:
> | If a reservation exists and the length associated [...] is not 2 bytes,
> | it is undefined whether (RS)_48:63 are stored [...]
> That doesn't make me feel comfortable :(

That's on page 692, right? The way I read that is of the lharx/sthcx
don't have the exact same address, storage is undefined. But I can't
find mention of non-matching load and store size, although I can imagine
it being the same undefined.
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

Powered by blists - more mailing lists