linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH -tip 2/3] sched/wake

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: <20150914210806.GG19736@linux-q0g1.site>
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/