linux-kernel - [PATCH 3/5] locking/rtmutex: Relax to acquire/release semantics

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: <1442743911-25366-4-git-send-email-dave@stgolabs.net>
Date:	Sun, 20 Sep 2015 03:11:49 -0700
From:	Davidlohr Bueso <dave@...olabs.net>
To:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Cc:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Davidlohr Bueso <dave@...olabs.net>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Davidlohr Bueso <dbueso@...e.de>
Subject: [PATCH 3/5] locking/rtmutex: Relax to acquire/release semantics

... by using acquire semantics where appropiate. As such, weakly
ordered archs can benefit from more relaxed use of barriers when
issuing atomics.

Signed-off-by: Davidlohr Bueso <dbueso@...e.de>
---
 kernel/locking/rtmutex.c | 30 +++++++++++++++++++++---------
 1 file changed, 21 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)

diff --git a/kernel/locking/rtmutex.c b/kernel/locking/rtmutex.c
index 7781d80..226a629 100644
--- a/kernel/locking/rtmutex.c
+++ b/kernel/locking/rtmutex.c
@@ -74,14 +74,23 @@ static void fixup_rt_mutex_waiters(struct rt_mutex *lock)
  * set up.
  */
 #ifndef CONFIG_DEBUG_RT_MUTEXES
-# define rt_mutex_cmpxchg(l,c,n)	(cmpxchg(&l->owner, c, n) == c)
+# define rt_mutex_cmpxchg_relaxed(l,c,n) (cmpxchg_relaxed(&l->owner, c, n) == c)
+# define rt_mutex_cmpxchg_acquire(l,c,n) (cmpxchg_acquire(&l->owner, c, n) == c)
+# define rt_mutex_cmpxchg_release(l,c,n) (cmpxchg_release(&l->owner, c, n) == c)
+
+/*
+ * Callers must hold the ->wait_lock -- which is the whole purpose as we force
+ * all future threads that attempt to [Rmw] the lock to the slowpath. As such
+ * relaxed semantics suffice.
+ */
 static inline void mark_rt_mutex_waiters(struct rt_mutex *lock)
 {
 	unsigned long owner, *p = (unsigned long *) &lock->owner;
 
 	do {
 		owner = *p;
-	} while (cmpxchg(p, owner, owner | RT_MUTEX_HAS_WAITERS) != owner);
+	} while (cmpxchg_relaxed(p, owner,
+				 owner | RT_MUTEX_HAS_WAITERS) != owner);
 }
 
 /*
@@ -121,11 +130,14 @@ static inline bool unlock_rt_mutex_safe(struct rt_mutex *lock)
 	 *					lock(wait_lock);
 	 *					acquire(lock);
 	 */
-	return rt_mutex_cmpxchg(lock, owner, NULL);
+	return rt_mutex_cmpxchg_acquire(lock, owner, NULL);
 }
 
 #else
-# define rt_mutex_cmpxchg(l,c,n)	(0)
+# define rt_mutex_cmpxchg_relaxed(l,c,n)	(0)
+# define rt_mutex_cmpxchg_acquire(l,c,n)	(0)
+# define rt_mutex_cmpxchg_release(l,c,n)	(0)
+
 static inline void mark_rt_mutex_waiters(struct rt_mutex *lock)
 {
 	lock->owner = (struct task_struct *)
@@ -1321,7 +1333,7 @@ rt_mutex_fastlock(struct rt_mutex *lock, int state,
 				struct hrtimer_sleeper *timeout,
 				enum rtmutex_chainwalk chwalk))
 {
-	if (likely(rt_mutex_cmpxchg(lock, NULL, current))) {
+	if (likely(rt_mutex_cmpxchg_acquire(lock, NULL, current))) {
 		rt_mutex_deadlock_account_lock(lock, current);
 		return 0;
 	} else
@@ -1337,7 +1349,7 @@ rt_mutex_timed_fastlock(struct rt_mutex *lock, int state,
 				      enum rtmutex_chainwalk chwalk))
 {
 	if (chwalk == RT_MUTEX_MIN_CHAINWALK &&
-	    likely(rt_mutex_cmpxchg(lock, NULL, current))) {
+	    likely(rt_mutex_cmpxchg_acquire(lock, NULL, current))) {
 		rt_mutex_deadlock_account_lock(lock, current);
 		return 0;
 	} else
@@ -1348,7 +1360,7 @@ static inline int
 rt_mutex_fasttrylock(struct rt_mutex *lock,
 		     int (*slowfn)(struct rt_mutex *lock))
 {
-	if (likely(rt_mutex_cmpxchg(lock, NULL, current))) {
+	if (likely(rt_mutex_cmpxchg_acquire(lock, NULL, current))) {
 		rt_mutex_deadlock_account_lock(lock, current);
 		return 1;
 	}
@@ -1362,7 +1374,7 @@ rt_mutex_fastunlock(struct rt_mutex *lock,
 {
 	WAKE_Q(wake_q);
 
-	if (likely(rt_mutex_cmpxchg(lock, current, NULL))) {
+	if (likely(rt_mutex_cmpxchg_release(lock, current, NULL))) {
 		rt_mutex_deadlock_account_unlock(current);
 
 	} else {
@@ -1484,7 +1496,7 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(rt_mutex_unlock);
 bool __sched rt_mutex_futex_unlock(struct rt_mutex *lock,
 				   struct wake_q_head *wqh)
 {
-	if (likely(rt_mutex_cmpxchg(lock, current, NULL))) {
+	if (likely(rt_mutex_cmpxchg_release(lock, current, NULL))) {
 		rt_mutex_deadlock_account_unlock(current);
 		return false;
 	}
-- 
2.1.4

--
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/