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: <20150915163028.GG16853@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date:	Tue, 15 Sep 2015 18:30:28 +0200
From:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc:	Davidlohr Bueso <dave@...olabs.net>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Davidlohr Bueso <dbueso@...e.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH -tip 2/3] sched/wake_q: Relax to acquire semantics

On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 08:34:48AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 04:14:39PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 07:09:22AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 02:48:00PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 05:41:42AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > > > > Never mind, the PPC people will implement this with lwsync and that is
> > > > > > very much not transitive IIRC.
> > > > > 
> > > > > I am probably lost on context, but...
> > > > > 
> > > > > It turns out that lwsync is transitive in special cases.  One of them
> > > > > is a series of release-acquire pairs, which can extend indefinitely.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Does that help in this case?
> > > > 
> > > > Probably not, but good to know. I still don't think we want to rely on
> > > > ACQUIRE/RELEASE being transitive in general though.
> > > 
> > > OK, I will bite...  Why not?
> > 
> > It would mean us reviewing all archs (again) and documenting it I
> > suppose. Which is of course entirely possible.
> > 
> > That said, I don't think the case at hand requires it, so lets postpone
> > this for now ;-)
> 
> True enough, but in my experience smp_store_release() and
> smp_load_acquire() are a -lot- easier to use than other barriers,
> and transitivity will help promote their use.  So...
> 
> All the TSO architectures (x86, s390, SPARC, HPPA, ...) support transitive
> smp_store_release()/smp_load_acquire() via their native ordering in
> combination with barrier() macros.  x86 with CONFIG_X86_PPRO_FENCE=y,
> which is not TSO, uses an mfence instruction.  Power supports this via
> lwsync's partial cumulativity.  ARM64 supports it in SMP via the new ldar
> and stlr instructions (in non-SMP, it uses barrier(), which suffices
> in that case).  IA64 supports this via total ordering of all release
> instructions in theory and by the actual full-barrier implementation
> in practice (and the fact that gcc emits st.rel and ld.acq instructions
> for volatile stores and loads).  All other architectures use smp_mb(),
> which is transitive.
> 
> Did I miss anything?

I think that about covers it.. the only odd duckling might be s390 which
is documented as TSO but recently grew smp_mb__{before,after}_atomic(),
which seems to confuse matters.
--
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/