linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 4/4] locking: Introduce smp_cond

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: <20151102174347.GK29657@arm.com>
Date:	Mon, 2 Nov 2015 17:43:48 +0000
From:	Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>
To:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:	mingo@...nel.org, oleg@...hat.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, boqun.feng@...il.com, corbet@....net,
	mhocko@...nel.org, dhowells@...hat.com,
	torvalds@...ux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/4] locking: Introduce smp_cond_acquire()

On Mon, Nov 02, 2015 at 02:57:26PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 02, 2015 at 02:29:05PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> 
> > Note that while smp_cond_acquire() has an explicit
> > smp_read_barrier_depends() for Alpha, neither sites it gets used in
> > were actually buggy on Alpha for their lack of it. The first uses
> > smp_rmb(), which on Alpha is a full barrier too and therefore serves
> > its purpose. The second had an explicit full barrier.
> 
> > +/**
> > + * smp_cond_acquire() - Spin wait for cond with ACQUIRE ordering
> > + * @cond: boolean expression to wait for
> > + *
> > + * Equivalent to using smp_load_acquire() on the condition variable but employs
> > + * the control dependency of the wait to reduce the barrier on many platforms.
> > + *
> > + * The control dependency provides a LOAD->STORE order, the additional RMB
> > + * provides LOAD->LOAD order, together they provide LOAD->{LOAD,STORE} order,
> > + * aka. ACQUIRE.
> > + */
> > +#define smp_cond_acquire(cond)	do {		\
> > +	while (!(cond))				\
> > +		cpu_relax();			\
> > +	smp_read_barrier_depends(); /* ctrl */	\
> > +	smp_rmb(); /* ctrl + rmb := acquire */	\
> > +} while (0)
> 
> So per the above argument we could leave out the
> smp_read_barrier_depends() for Alpha, although that would break
> consistency with all the other control dependency primitives we have. It
> would avoid issuing a double barrier.
> 
> Thoughts?

Do we even know that Alpha needs a barrier for control-dependencies in
the first place?

Will
--
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/