linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v16 13/14] pvqspinlock: Improve slowpath performance by avoiding cmpxchg

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: <20150429181112.GI23123@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date:	Wed, 29 Apr 2015 20:11:12 +0200
From:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:	Waiman Long <Waiman.Long@...com>
Cc:	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.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,
	Paolo Bonzini <paolo.bonzini@...il.com>,
	Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@...cle.com>,
	Boris Ostrovsky <boris.ostrovsky@...cle.com>,
	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Raghavendra K T <raghavendra.kt@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	David Vrabel <david.vrabel@...rix.com>,
	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
	Daniel J Blueman <daniel@...ascale.com>,
	Scott J Norton <scott.norton@...com>,
	Douglas Hatch <doug.hatch@...com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v16 13/14] pvqspinlock: Improve slowpath performance by
 avoiding cmpxchg

On Fri, Apr 24, 2015 at 02:56:42PM -0400, Waiman Long wrote:
> In the pv_scan_next() function, the slow cmpxchg atomic operation is
> performed even if the other CPU is not even close to being halted. This
> extra cmpxchg can harm slowpath performance.
> 
> This patch introduces the new mayhalt flag to indicate if the other
> spinning CPU is close to being halted or not. The current threshold
> for x86 is 2k cpu_relax() calls. If this flag is not set, the other
> spinning CPU will have at least 2k more cpu_relax() calls before
> it can enter the halt state. This should give enough time for the
> setting of the locked flag in struct mcs_spinlock to propagate to
> that CPU without using atomic op.

Yuck! I'm not at all sure you can make assumptions like that. And the
worst part is, if it goes wrong the borkage is subtle and painful.
--
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/