linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 8/9] qspinlock: Generic paravirt support

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:	Wed, 01 Apr 2015 12:20:30 -0400
From:	Waiman Long <waiman.long@...com>
To:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
CC:	tglx@...utronix.de, mingo@...hat.com, hpa@...or.com,
	paolo.bonzini@...il.com, konrad.wilk@...cle.com,
	boris.ostrovsky@...cle.com, paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
	riel@...hat.com, torvalds@...ux-foundation.org,
	raghavendra.kt@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, david.vrabel@...rix.com,
	oleg@...hat.com, scott.norton@...com, doug.hatch@...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,
	luto@...capital.net
Subject: Re: [PATCH 8/9] qspinlock: Generic paravirt support

On 03/19/2015 08:25 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 11:12:42AM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>> So I was now thinking of hashing the lock pointer; let me go and quickly
>> put something together.
> A little something like so; ideally we'd allocate the hashtable since
> NR_CPUS is kinda bloated, but it shows the idea I think.
>
> And while this has loops in (the rehashing thing) their fwd progress
> does not depend on other CPUs.
>
> And I suspect that for the typical lock contention scenarios its
> unlikely we ever really get into long rehashing chains.
>
> ---
>   include/linux/lfsr.h                |   49 ++++++++++++
>   kernel/locking/qspinlock_paravirt.h |  143 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++----
>   2 files changed, 178 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
>
> --- /dev/null
>
> +
> +static int pv_hash_find(struct qspinlock *lock)
> +{
> +	u64 hash = hash_ptr(lock, PV_LOCK_HASH_BITS);
> +	struct pv_hash_bucket *hb, *end;
> +	int cpu = -1;
> +
> +	if (!hash)
> +		hash = 1;
> +
> +	hb =&__pv_lock_hash[hash_align(hash)];
> +	for (;;) {
> +		for (end = hb + PV_HB_PER_LINE; hb<  end; hb++) {
> +			struct qspinlock *l = READ_ONCE(hb->lock);
> +
> +			/*
> +			 * If we hit an unused bucket, there is no match.
> +			 */
> +			if (!l)
> +				goto done;

After more careful reading, I think the assumption that the presence of 
an unused bucket means there is no match is not true. Consider the scenario:

1. cpu 0 puts lock1 into hb[0]
2. cpu 1 puts lock2 into hb[1]
3. cpu 2 clears hb[0]
4. cpu 3 looks for lock2 and doesn't find it

I was thinking about putting some USED flag in the buckets, but then we 
will eventually fill them all up as used. If we put the entries into a 
hashed linked list, we have to deal with the complicated synchronization 
issues with link list update.

At this point, I am thinking using back your previous idea of passing 
the queue head information down the queue. I am now convinced that the 
unlock call site patching should work. So I will incorporate that in my 
next update.

Please let me know if you think my reasoning is not correct.

Thanks,
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/