linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH v2] memory-barriers: remove smp_mb__after_unlock

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 Jul 2015 12:00:28 +1000
From:	Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>
To:	Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>
Cc:	Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
	"linux-arch@...r.kernel.org" <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Paul McKenney <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2] memory-barriers: remove
 smp_mb__after_unlock_lock()

On Wed, 2015-07-15 at 11:44 +0100, Will Deacon wrote:
> Hi Michael,
> 
> On Wed, Jul 15, 2015 at 04:06:18AM +0100, Michael Ellerman wrote:
> > On Tue, 2015-07-14 at 08:31 +1000, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> > > On Mon, 2015-07-13 at 13:15 +0100, Will Deacon wrote:
> > > > This didn't go anywhere last time I posted it, but here it is again.
> > > > I'd really appreciate some feedback from the PowerPC guys, especially as
> > > > to whether this change requires them to add an additional barrier in
> > > > arch_spin_unlock and what the cost of that would be.
> > > 
> > > We'd have to turn the lwsync in unlock or the isync in lock into a full
> > > barrier. As it is, we *almost* have a full barrier semantic, but not
> > > quite, as in things can get mixed up inside spin_lock between the LL and
> > > the SC (things leaking in past LL and things leaking "out" up before SC
> > > and then getting mixed up in there).
> > > 
> > > Michael, at some point you were experimenting a bit with that and tried
> > > to get some perf numbers of the impact that would have, did that
> > > solidify ? Otherwise, I'll have a look when I'm back next week.
> > 
> > I was mainly experimenting with replacing the lwsync in lock with an isync.
> > 
> > But I think you're talking about making it a full sync in lock.
> > 
> > That was about +7% on p8, +25% on p7 and +88% on p6.
> 
> Ok, so that's overhead incurred by moving from isync -> lwsync? The numbers
> look quite large...

Sorry no.

Currently we use lwsync in lock. You'll see isync in the code
(PPC_ACQUIRE_BARRIER), but on most modern CPUs that is patched at runtime to
lwsync.

I benchmarked lwsync (current), isync (proposed at the time) and sync (just for
comparison).

The numbers above are going from lwsync -> sync, as I thought that was what Ben
was talking about.

Going from lwsync to isync was actually a small speedup on power8, which was
surprising.

> > We got stuck deciding whether isync was safe to use as a memory barrier,
> > because the wording in the arch is a bit vague.
> > 
> > But if we're talking about a full sync then I think there is no question that's
> > OK and we should just do it.
> 
> Is this because there's a small overhead from lwsync -> sync? Just want to
> make sure I follow your reasoning.

No I mean that sync is clearly a memory barrier. The issue with switching to
isync in lock was that it's not a memory barrier per se, so we were not 100%
confident in it.

> If you went the way of sync in unlock, could you remove the conditional
> SYNC_IO stuff?

Yeah we could, it's just a conditional sync in unlock when mmio has been done.

That would fix the problem with smp_mb__after_unlock_lock(), but not the
original worry we had about loads happening before the SC in lock.

cheers


--
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/