linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/2] mm/slub: optimize alloc/free fastpath by removing preemption on/off

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]

Date:	Tue, 06 Jan 2015 09:02:17 -0800
From:	Davidlohr Bueso <dave@...olabs.net>
To:	Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@....com>
Cc:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>,
	Pekka Enberg <penberg@...nel.org>,
	David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Jesper Dangaard Brouer <brouer@...hat.com>,
	rostedt@...dmis.org, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] mm/slub: optimize alloc/free fastpath by removing
 preemption on/off

On Tue, 2015-01-06 at 17:09 +0900, Joonsoo Kim wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 05, 2015 at 07:03:12PM -0800, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
> > On Mon, 2015-01-05 at 10:36 +0900, Joonsoo Kim wrote:
> > > -	preempt_disable();
> > > -	c = this_cpu_ptr(s->cpu_slab);
> > > +	do {
> > > +		tid = this_cpu_read(s->cpu_slab->tid);
> > > +		c = this_cpu_ptr(s->cpu_slab);
> > > +	} while (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_PREEMPT) && unlikely(tid != c->tid));
> > > +	barrier();
> > 
> > I don't see the compiler reodering the object/page stores below, since c
> > is updated in the loop anyway. Is this really necessary (same goes for
> > slab_free)? The generated code by gcc 4.8 looks correct without it.
> > Additionally, the implied barriers for preemption control aren't really
> > the same semantics used here (if that is actually the reason why you are
> > using them).
> 
> Hello,
> 
> I'd like to use tid as a pivot so it should be fetched before fetching
> anything on c. Is it impossible even if !CONFIG_PREEMPT without
> barrier()?

You'd need a smp_wmb() in between tid and c in the loop then, which
looks quite unpleasant. All in all disabling preemption isn't really
that expensive, and you should redo your performance number if you go
this way.

--
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/