linux-kernel - Re: Question about barriers for ARM on tools/perf/

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: <20150508141620.GK27504@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date:	Fri, 8 May 2015 16:16:20 +0200
From:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:	Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org>
Cc:	Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
	David Ahern <dsahern@...il.com>, Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...hat.com>,
	Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...il.com>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Question about barriers for ARM on tools/perf/

On Fri, May 08, 2015 at 11:04:59AM -0300, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
> Hi Will,
> 
> 	I am working on moving the stuff we have for mb/rmb/wmb from
> tools/perf/perf-sys.h to tools/include/asm/barrier.h, redirecting
> to tools/arch/$ARCH/include/asm/barrier.h, to make it look like the
> kernel and who knows, at some point even share the source code.
> 
> 	For now I am getting just what is needed for work on having
> atomic.h done in the same fashion, to implement refcounts for various
> perf data structures, starting with struct thread, for which I have
> a patch that makes perf survive in high core count machines where it
> currently crashes, most nobably 'perf top'.
> 
> 	While doing that I noticed that arm64 implementation, lastly
> fixed in:
> 
>   f428ebd184c82a7914b2aa7e9f868918aaf7ea78
>   perf tools: Fix AAAAARGH64 memory barriers
> 
> By peterz, it implements those barriers as:
> 
> #define mb()            asm volatile("dmb ish" ::: "memory")
> #define wmb()           asm volatile("dmb ishst" ::: "memory")
> #define rmb()           asm volatile("dmb ishld" ::: "memory")
> 
> Which are not the same as in the kernel, i.e. in
> arch/arm64/include/asm/barrier.h, where the above are really smp_mb,
> smp_wmb and smp_rmb.
> 
> Would it be enough for us to use the same implementation as the kernel?
> I.e. make it be:
> 
> #define mb()            asm volatile("dsb sy" ::: "memory")
> #define wmb()           asm volatile("dsb st" ::: "memory")
> #define rmb()           asm volatile("dsb ld" ::: "memory")
> 
> ? If so I would then use those dsb/dmb macros, etc, to get tools/ to use
> the proper instructions, etc.
> 
> I need now, for arm64, smp_mb, that is used by atomic_sub_return(), that
> in turn is used by atomic_dec_and_test(), that I need for refcounts.
> 
> Can you clarify?

The dmb things include a fence for IO, the dsb are only for between
CPUs.

So for your work the dsb are fine.
--
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/