linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH tip/locking/core v9 2/6] locking/qspinlock: prefetch next node cacheline

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:	Mon, 2 Nov 2015 23:54:04 +0100
From:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:	Waiman Long <Waiman.Long@....com>
Cc:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, x86@...nel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Scott J Norton <scott.norton@....com>,
	Douglas Hatch <doug.hatch@....com>,
	Davidlohr Bueso <dave@...olabs.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH tip/locking/core v9 2/6] locking/qspinlock: prefetch next
 node cacheline

On Mon, Nov 02, 2015 at 05:36:26PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 07:26:33PM -0400, Waiman Long wrote:
> > @@ -426,6 +437,15 @@ queue:
> >  		cpu_relax();
> >  
> >  	/*
> > +	 * If the next pointer is defined, we are not tail anymore.
> > +	 * In this case, claim the spinlock & release the MCS lock.
> > +	 */
> > +	if (next) {
> > +		set_locked(lock);
> > +		goto mcs_unlock;
> > +	}
> > +
> > +	/*
> >  	 * claim the lock:
> >  	 *
> >  	 * n,0,0 -> 0,0,1 : lock, uncontended
> > @@ -458,6 +478,7 @@ queue:
> >  	while (!(next = READ_ONCE(node->next)))
> >  		cpu_relax();
> >  
> > +mcs_unlock:
> >  	arch_mcs_spin_unlock_contended(&next->locked);
> >  	pv_kick_node(lock, next);
> >  
> 
> This however appears an independent optimization. Is it worth it? Would
> we not already have observed a val != tail in this case? At which point
> we're just adding extra code for no gain.
> 
> That is, if we observe @next, must we then not also observe val != tail?

Not quite; the ordering is the other way around. If we observe next we
must also observe val != tail. But its a narrow thing. Is it really
worth it?
--
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/