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
| ||
|
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 2015 14:08:06 -0700 From: Davidlohr Bueso <dave@...olabs.net> To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Davidlohr Bueso <dbueso@...e.de> Subject: Re: [PATCH -tip 2/3] sched/wake_q: Relax to acquire semantics On Mon, 14 Sep 2015, Peter Zijlstra wrote: >On Mon, Sep 14, 2015 at 12:37:23AM -0700, Davidlohr Bueso wrote: >> /* >> + * Atomically grab the task. If ->wake_q is non-nil (failed cmpxchg) >> + * then the task is already queued (by us or someone else) and will >> + * get the wakeup due to that. >> * >> + * Use acquire semantics to add the next pointer, which pairs with the >> + * write barrier implied by the wakeup in wake_up_list(). >> */ >> + if (cmpxchg_acquire(&node->next, NULL, WAKE_Q_TAIL)) >> return; >> >> get_task_struct(task); > >I'm not seeing a _why_ on the acquire semantics. Not saying the patch is >wrong, just saying I want words on why acquire is correct. Well, I was just taking advantage of removing the upper barrier. Considering that the formal semantics, you are right that we need not actual acquire per-se (ie for node->next) but instead merely ensure a barrier in wake_q_add(). This is kind of why I had hinted of going full _relaxed(). We could also rephrase the comment, something like: * Use ACQUIRE semantics to add the next pointer, such that * wake_q_add() implies a full barrier. This pairs with the * write barrier implied by the wakeup in wake_up_list(). */ What do you think? -- 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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists