linux-kernel - Re: [RFC] Cancellable MCS spinlock rework

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20140704091700.GQ3935@laptop>
Date:	Fri, 4 Jul 2014 11:17:00 +0200
From:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:	Jason Low <jason.low2@...com>
Cc:	Waiman Long <waiman.long@...com>,
	Davidlohr Bueso <davidlohr@...com>,
	torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
	mingo@...nel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, riel@...hat.com,
	akpm@...ux-foundation.org, hpa@...or.com, andi@...stfloor.org,
	James.Bottomley@...senpartnership.com, rostedt@...dmis.org,
	tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com, aswin@...com, scott.norton@...com,
	chegu_vinod@...com
Subject: Re: [RFC] Cancellable MCS spinlock rework

On Thu, Jul 03, 2014 at 06:07:23PM -0700, Jason Low wrote:
> On Thu, 2014-07-03 at 16:35 -0400, Waiman Long wrote:
> 
> > I do see a point in reducing the size of the rwsem structure. However, I 
> > don't quite understand the point of converting pointers in the 
> > optimistic_spin_queue structure to atomic_t. The structure is cacheline 
> > aligned and there is no saving in size. Converting them to atomic_t does 
> > have a bit of additional overhead of converting the encoded cpu number 
> > back to the actual pointer.
> > 
> > So my suggestion is to just change what is stored in the mutex and rwsem 
> > structure to atomic_t, but keep the pointers in the 
> > optimistic_spin_queue structure.
> 
> Peter, would you prefer going with the above?

Yeah..

> If we were to keep the pointers to the next and prev nodes in the struct
> optimistic_spin_queue instead of converting them to atomic_t to store
> their cpu #, we'd still need to keep track of the cpu #. In the unqueue
> phase of osq_lock, we might have to reload prev = node->prev which we
> then may cmpxchg() it with the lock tail.
> 
> The method we can think of so far would be to add a regular int variable
> to optimistic_spin_queue and initialize it to the CPU #, during the time
> we also initialize node->locked and node->next at the beginning of
> osq_lock. The cost wouldn't be much of an issue since
> optimistic_spin_queue is cache aligned.

Right, there's actually a 4 byte hole in there aside from the full
cacheline alignment, so yeah, tons of space.

--
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/