linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] barriers: introduce smp_mb__release

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]
Date:	Thu, 8 Oct 2015 15:17:16 -0700
From:	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:	Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>
Cc:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>,
	linux-arch@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>,
	Anton Blanchard <anton@...ba.org>,
	Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
	Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
	linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] barriers: introduce smp_mb__release_acquire and
 update documentation

On Thu, Oct 08, 2015 at 01:59:38PM +0100, Will Deacon wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 08, 2015 at 01:16:38PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Thu, Oct 08, 2015 at 02:50:36PM +1100, Michael Ellerman wrote:
> > > On Wed, 2015-10-07 at 08:25 -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > 
> > > > Currently, we do need smp_mb__after_unlock_lock() to be after the
> > > > acquisition on PPC -- putting it between the unlock and the lock
> > > > of course doesn't cut it for the cross-thread unlock/lock case.
> > 
> > This ^, that makes me think I don't understand
> > smp_mb__after_unlock_lock.
> > 
> > How is:
> > 
> > 	UNLOCK x
> > 	smp_mb__after_unlock_lock()
> > 	LOCK y
> > 
> > a problem? That's still a full barrier.
> 
> I thought Paul was talking about something like this case:
> 
> CPU A     CPU B              CPU C
> foo = 1
> UNLOCK x
>           LOCK x
>           (RELEASE) bar = 1
>                              ACQUIRE bar = 1
>                              READ_ONCE foo = 0

More like this:

CPU A			CPU B			CPU C
WRITE_ONCE(foo, 1);
UNLOCK x
			LOCK x
			r1 = READ_ONCE(bar);
						WRITE_ONCE(bar, 1);
						smp_mb();
						r2 = READ_ONCE(foo);

This can result in r1==0 && r2==0.

> but this looks the same as ISA2+lwsyncs/ISA2+lwsync+ctrlisync+lwsync,
> which are both forbidden on PPC, so now I'm also confused.
> 
> The different-lock, same thread case is more straight-forward, I think.

Indeed it is:

CPU A			CPU B
WRITE_ONCE(foo, 1);
UNLOCK x
LOCK x
r1 = READ_ONCE(bar);
			WRITE_ONCE(bar, 1);
			smp_mb();
			r2 = READ_ONCE(foo);

This also can result in r1==0 && r2==0.

> > > > I am with Peter -- we do need the benchmark results for PPC.
> > > 
> > > Urgh, sorry guys. I have been slowly doing some benchmarks, but time is not
> > > plentiful at the moment.
> > > 
> > > If we do a straight lwsync -> sync conversion for unlock it looks like that
> > > will cost us ~4.2% on Anton's standard context switch benchmark.
> 
> Thanks Michael!
> 
> > And that does not seem to agree with Paul's smp_mb__after_unlock_lock()
> > usage and would not be sufficient for the same (as of yet unexplained)
> > reason.
> > 
> > Why does it matter which of the LOCK or UNLOCK gets promoted to full
> > barrier on PPC in order to become RCsc?
> 
> I think we need a PPC litmus test illustrating the inter-thread, same
> lock failure case when smp_mb__after_unlock_lock is not present so that
> we can reason about this properly. Paul?

Please see above.  ;-)

The corresponding litmus tests are below.

							Thanx, Paul

------------------------------------------------------------------------

PPC lock-2thread-WR-barrier.litmus
""
(*
 * Does 3.0 Linux-kernel Power lock-unlock provide local 
 * barrier that orders prior stores against subsequent loads,
 * if the unlock and lock happen on different threads?
 * This version uses lwsync instead of isync.
 *)
(* 23-July-2013: ppcmem says "Sometimes" *)
{
l=1;
0:r1=1;          0:r4=x;         0:r10=0;          0:r12=l;
1:r1=1; 1:r3=42; 1:r4=x; 1:r5=y; 1:r10=0; 1:r11=0; 1:r12=l;
2:r1=1;          2:r4=x; 2:r5=y;
}
 P0             | P1                 | P2;
 stw r1,0(r4)   | lwarx r11,r10,r12  | stw r1,0(r5) ;
 lwsync         | cmpwi r11,0        | lwsync       ;
 stw r10,0(r12) | bne Fail1          | lwz r7,0(r4) ;
                | stwcx. r1,r10,r12  | ;
                | bne Fail1          | ;
                | isync              | ;
                | lwz r3,0(r5)       | ;
                | Fail1:             | ;


exists
(1:r3=0 /\ 2:r7=0)

------------------------------------------------------------------------

PPC lock-1thread-WR-barrier.litmus
""
(*
 * Does 3.0 Linux-kernel Power lock-unlock provide local 
 * barrier that orders prior stores against subsequent loads,
 * if the unlock and lock happen in the same thread?
 * This version uses lwsync instead of isync.
 *)
(* 8-Oct-2015: ppcmem says "Sometimes" *)
{
l=1;
0:r1=1; 0:r3=42; 0:r4=x; 0:r5=y; 0:r10=0; 0:r11=0; 0:r12=l;
1:r1=1;          1:r4=x; 1:r5=y;
}
 P0                | P1           ;
 stw r1,0(r4)      | stw r1,0(r5) ;
 lwsync            | lwsync       ;
 stw r10,0(r12)    | lwz r7,0(r4) ;
 lwarx r11,r10,r12 |              ;
 cmpwi r11,0       |              ;
 bne Fail1         |              ;
 stwcx. r1,r10,r12 |              ;
 bne Fail1         |              ;
 isync             |              ;
 lwz r3,0(r5)      |              ;
 Fail1:            |              ;


exists
(0:r3=0 /\ 1:r7=0)

--
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/