linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v6 5/6] locking/pvqspinlock: Allow 1 lock stealing attempt

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: <55F71CC8.3050306@hpe.com>
Date:	Mon, 14 Sep 2015 15:15:20 -0400
From:	Waiman Long <waiman.long@....com>
To:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
CC:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, x86@...nel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Scott J Norton <scott.norton@...com>,
	Douglas Hatch <doug.hatch@...com>,
	Davidlohr Bueso <dave@...olabs.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 5/6] locking/pvqspinlock: Allow 1 lock stealing attempt

On 09/14/2015 10:00 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 02:37:37PM -0400, Waiman Long wrote:
>> This patch allows one attempt for the lock waiter to steal the lock
>> when entering the PV slowpath.  This helps to reduce the performance
>> penalty caused by lock waiter preemption while not having much of
>> the downsides of a real unfair lock.
>> @@ -415,8 +458,12 @@ static void pv_wait_head(struct qspinlock *lock, struct mcs_spinlock *node)
>>
>>   	for (;; waitcnt++) {
>>   		for (loop = SPIN_THRESHOLD; loop; loop--) {
>> -			if (!READ_ONCE(l->locked))
>> -				return;
>> +			/*
>> +			 * Try to acquire the lock when it is free.
>> +			 */
>> +			if (!READ_ONCE(l->locked)&&
>> +			   (cmpxchg(&l->locked, 0, _Q_LOCKED_VAL) == 0))
>> +				goto gotlock;
>>   			cpu_relax();
>>   		}
>>
> This isn't _once_, this is once per 'wakeup'. And note that interrupts
> unrelated to the kick can equally wake the vCPU up.
>

Oh! There is a minor bug that I shouldn't need to have a second 
READ_ONCE() call here.

As this is the queue head, finding the lock free entitles the vCPU to 
own the lock. However, because of lock stealing, I can't just write a 1 
to the lock and assume thing is all set. That is why I need to use 
cmpxchg() to make sure that the queue head vCPU can actually get the 
lock without the lock stolen underneath. I don't count that as lock 
stealing as it is the rightful owner of the lock.

I am sorry that I should have added a comment to clarify that. Will do 
so in the next update.

 > void queued_spin_lock_slowpath(struct qspinlock *lock, u32 val)
 > {
 >     :
 >         /*
 >         * We touched a (possibly) cold cacheline in the per-cpu queue 
node;
 >         * attempt the trylock once more in the hope someone let go 
while we
 >         * weren't watching.
 >         */
 >        if (queued_spin_trylock(lock))
 >                goto release;

This is the only place where I consider lock stealing happens. Again, I 
should have a comment in pv_queued_spin_trylock_unfair() to say where it 
will be called.

Cheers,
Longman
--
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/