linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v9 04/19] qspinlock: Extract out the exchange of tail code word

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: <53516B65.1020600@hp.com>
Date:	Fri, 18 Apr 2014 14:13:57 -0400
From:	Waiman Long <waiman.long@...com>
To:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
CC:	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org,
	x86@...nel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
	xen-devel@...ts.xenproject.org, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
	Paolo Bonzini <paolo.bonzini@...il.com>,
	Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@...cle.com>,
	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Raghavendra K T <raghavendra.kt@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	David Vrabel <david.vrabel@...rix.com>,
	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
	Gleb Natapov <gleb@...hat.com>,
	Scott J Norton <scott.norton@...com>,
	Chegu Vinod <chegu_vinod@...com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v9 04/19] qspinlock: Extract out the exchange of tail
 code word

On 04/18/2014 01:53 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 18, 2014 at 01:32:47PM -0400, Waiman Long wrote:
>> On 04/18/2014 04:15 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>>> On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 05:28:17PM -0400, Waiman Long wrote:
>>>> On 04/17/2014 11:49 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 11:03:56AM -0400, Waiman Long wrote:
>>>>>> @@ -192,36 +220,25 @@ void queue_spin_lock_slowpath(struct qspinlock *lock, u32 val)
>>>>>>   	node->next = NULL;
>>>>>>
>>>>>>   	/*
>>>>>> +	 * We touched a (possibly) cold cacheline; attempt the trylock once
>>>>>> +	 * more in the hope someone let go while we weren't watching as long
>>>>>> +	 * as no one was queuing.
>>>>>>   	 */
>>>>>> +	if (!(val&    _Q_TAIL_MASK)&&    queue_spin_trylock(lock))
>>>>>> +		goto release;
>>>>> But you just did a potentially very expensive op; @val isn't
>>>>> representative anymore!
>>>> That is not true. I pass in a pointer to val to trylock_pending() (the
>>>> pointer thing) so that it will store the latest value that it reads from the
>>>> lock back into val. I did miss one in the PV qspinlock exit loop. I will add
>>>> it back when I do the next version.
>>> But you did that read _before_ you touched a cold cacheline, that's 100s
>>> of cycles. Whatever value you read back then is now complete nonsense.
>> For spin_lock(), the lock cacheline is touched by a cmpxchg(). It can takes
>> 100s of cycles whether it is hot or cold.
> Its not the lock cacheline, you just touched the per-cpu node cacheline
> for the first time, setting up the node.
>

Thank for the clarification, now I know what you mean.

-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/