linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/2] locking/rwsem: Use a return variable in rwsem_spin_on

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: <1428561611.3506.78.camel@j-VirtualBox>
Date:	Wed, 08 Apr 2015 23:40:11 -0700
From:	Jason Low <jason.low2@...com>
To:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
Cc:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Davidlohr Bueso <dave@...olabs.net>,
	Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com>,
	Aswin Chandramouleeswaran <aswin@...com>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, jason.low2@...com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] locking/rwsem: Use a return variable in
 rwsem_spin_on_owner()

On Thu, 2015-04-09 at 07:37 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:

> The 'break' path does not seem to be equivalent, we used to do:
> 
> > -			rcu_read_unlock();
> > -			return false;
> 
> and now we'll do:
> 
> > +			ret = false;
> ...
> > +	if (!READ_ONCE(sem->owner)) {
> > +		long count = READ_ONCE(sem->count);
> 
> it's harmless (we do one more round of checking), but that's not an 
> equivalent transformation and slows down the preemption trigger a 
> (tiny) bit, because the chance that we actually catch the lock when 
> breaking out early is vanishingly small. (It might in fact do the 
> wrong thing in returning true if need_resched() is set and we've 
> switched owners in that small window.)
> 
> Given how dissimilar the return path is in this case, I'm not sure 
> it's worth sharing it. This might be one of the few cases where 
> separate return statements is the better solution.

I also preferred the multiple returns for the rwsem variant to avoid
needing to check sem->owner when it should go to slowpath, as you
mentioned.

Now that I think of it though, if we want to have just one return path,
we can still do that if we add an "out" label.

---
 kernel/locking/rwsem-xadd.c |   25 +++++++++++++------------
 1 files changed, 13 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)

diff --git a/kernel/locking/rwsem-xadd.c b/kernel/locking/rwsem-xadd.c
index 3417d01..e74240f 100644
--- a/kernel/locking/rwsem-xadd.c
+++ b/kernel/locking/rwsem-xadd.c
@@ -327,38 +327,39 @@ done:
 static noinline
 bool rwsem_spin_on_owner(struct rw_semaphore *sem, struct task_struct *owner)
 {
-	long count;
+	bool ret = true;
 
 	rcu_read_lock();
 	while (sem->owner == owner) {
 		/*
 		 * Ensure we emit the owner->on_cpu, dereference _after_
-		 * checking sem->owner still matches owner, if that fails,
-		 * owner might point to free()d memory, if it still matches,
+		 * checking sem->owner still matches owner. If that fails,
+		 * owner might point to freed memory. If it still matches,
 		 * the rcu_read_lock() ensures the memory stays valid.
 		 */
 		barrier();
 
-		/* abort spinning when need_resched or owner is not running */
+		/* Abort spinning when need_resched or owner is not running. */
 		if (!owner->on_cpu || need_resched()) {
 			rcu_read_unlock();
-			return false;
+			ret = false;
+			goto out;
 		}
 
 		cpu_relax_lowlatency();
 	}
 	rcu_read_unlock();
 
-	if (READ_ONCE(sem->owner))
-		return true; /* new owner, continue spinning */
-
 	/*
 	 * When the owner is not set, the lock could be free or
-	 * held by readers. Check the counter to verify the
-	 * state.
+	 * held by readers. Check the counter to verify the state.
 	 */
-	count = READ_ONCE(sem->count);
-	return (count == 0 || count == RWSEM_WAITING_BIAS);
+	if (!READ_ONCE(sem->owner)) {
+		long count = READ_ONCE(sem->count);
+		ret = (count == 0 || count == RWSEM_WAITING_BIAS);
+	}
+out:
+	return ret;
 }
 
 static bool rwsem_optimistic_spin(struct rw_semaphore *sem)
-- 
1.7.2.5



--
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/