linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/3] sched, timer: Remove usages of ACCESS

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:	Thu, 16 Apr 2015 18:52:24 +0200
From:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
Cc:	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>, Mel Gorman <mel@....ul.ie>,
	Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
	Jason Low <jason.low2@...com>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
	Mike Galbraith <umgwanakikbuti@...il.com>,
	Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
	Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>,
	Preeti U Murthy <preeti@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	hideaki.kimura@...com, Aswin Chandramouleeswaran <aswin@...com>,
	Scott J Norton <scott.norton@...com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] sched, timer: Remove usages of ACCESS_ONCE in the
 scheduler

On Wed, Apr 15, 2015 at 09:46:01AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:

 > @@ -2088,7 +2088,7 @@ void task_numa_fault(int last_cpupid, int mem_node, int pages, int flags)
 >  
 >  static void reset_ptenuma_scan(struct task_struct *p)
 >  {
 > -	ACCESS_ONCE(p->mm->numa_scan_seq)++;
 > +	WRITE_ONCE(p->mm->numa_scan_seq, READ_ONCE(p->mm->numa_scan_seq) + 1);
 
vs

	seq = ACCESS_ONCE(p->mm->numa_scan_seq);
	if (p->numa_scan_seq == seq)
		return;
	p->numa_scan_seq = seq;


> So the original ACCESS_ONCE() barriers were misguided to begin with: I 
> think they tried to handle races with the scheduler balancing softirq 
> and tried to avoid having to use atomics for the sequence counter 
> (which would be overkill), but things like ACCESS_ONCE(x)++ never 
> guaranteed atomicity (or even coherency) of the update.
> 
> But since in reality this is only statistical sampling code, all these 
> compiler barriers can be removed I think. Peter, Mel, Rik, do you 
> agree?

ACCESS_ONCE() is not a compiler barrier

The 'read' side uses ACCESS_ONCE() for two purposes:
 - to load the value once, we don't want the seq number to change under
   us for obvious reasons
 - to avoid load tearing and observe weird seq numbers

The update side uses ACCESS_ONCE() to avoid write tearing, and strictly
speaking it should also worry about read-tearing since its not hard
serialized, although its very unlikely to actually have concurrency
(IIRC).
--
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/