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: <20150508142156.GB25587@arm.com>
Date:	Fri, 8 May 2015 15:21:56 +0100
From:	Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>
To:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:	Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org>,
	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 03:16:20PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> 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.

Other way around ;)

(I relied separately anyway)

Will
--
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/