linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 5/8] locking, mutex: Cancelable MCS lock for adaptive spinning

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20140210213202.GX2936@laptop.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date:	Mon, 10 Feb 2014 22:32:02 +0100
From:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:	Jason Low <jason.low2@...com>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Waiman Long <waiman.long@...com>,
	mingo@...nel.org, paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
	torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, tglx@...utronix.de, riel@...hat.com,
	akpm@...ux-foundation.org, davidlohr@...com, hpa@...or.com,
	andi@...stfloor.org, aswin@...com, scott.norton@...com,
	chegu_vinod@...com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/8] locking, mutex: Cancelable MCS lock for adaptive
 spinning

On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 01:15:59PM -0800, Jason Low wrote:
> On Mon, 2014-02-10 at 20:58 +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > +void osq_unlock(struct optimistic_spin_queue **lock)
> > +{
> > +	struct optimistic_spin_queue *node = this_cpu_ptr(&osq_node);
> > +	struct optimistic_spin_queue *next;
> > +
> > +	/*
> > +	 * Fast path for the uncontended case.
> > +	 */
> > +	if (likely(cmpxchg(lock, node, NULL) == node))
> > +		return;
> 
> Can we can also add the following code here as I'm noticing next != NULL
> is the much more likely scenario on my box:
> 
>         next = xchg(&node->next, NULL);
>         if (next) {
>                 ACCESS_ONCE(next->locked) = 1;
>                 return;

Is adding that really much faster than the relatively straight path
oqs_wait_next() would walk to bit the same exit?

The only reason I pulled out the above cmpxchg() is because its the
uncontended fast path, which seems like a special enough case.

> > +	next = osq_wait_next(lock, node, NULL);
> > +	if (next)
> > +		ACCESS_ONCE(next->locked) = 1;
> > +}
> 
--
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/