linux-kernel - [PATCH 3/5] locking/rtmutex: Use 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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Wed, 30 Sep 2015 13:03:13 -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>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Davidlohr Bueso <dave@...olabs.net>,
	Davidlohr Bueso <dbueso@...e.de>
Subject: [PATCH 3/5] locking/rtmutex: Use acquire/release semantics

As of 654672d4ba1 (locking/atomics: Add _{acquire|release|relaxed}()
variants of some atomic operations) and 6d79ef2d30e (locking, asm-generic:
Add _{relaxed|acquire|release}() variants for 'atomic_long_t'), weakly
ordered archs can benefit from more relaxed use of barriers when locking
and unlocking, instead of regular full barrier semantics. While currently
only arm64 supports such optimizations, updating corresponding locking
primitives serves for other archs to immediately benefit as well, once the
necessary machinery is implemented of course.

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 35e9bfc..8251e75 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_release(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 *)
@@ -1322,7 +1334,7 @@ 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
@@ -1338,7 +1350,7 @@ 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
@@ -1349,7 +1361,7 @@ 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;
 	}
@@ -1363,7 +1375,7 @@ 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 {
@@ -1485,7 +1497,7 @@ 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/