linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 3/4] 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]

Date:	Fri, 4 Dec 2015 14:57:52 +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, waiman.long@....com, pjt@...gle.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4] locking: Introduce smp_cond_acquire()

On Thu, Dec 03, 2015 at 09:26:27PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 03, 2015 at 04:37:26PM +0000, Will Deacon wrote:
> > > +#define smp_cond_acquire(cond)	do {		\
> > > +	while (!(cond))				\
> > > +		cpu_relax();			\
> > > +	smp_rmb(); /* ctrl + rmb := acquire */	\
> > > +} while (0)
> 
> > > +	smp_cond_acquire(!((val = atomic_read(&lock->val)) & _Q_LOCKED_PENDING_MASK));
> > 
> > I think we spoke about this before, but what would work really well for
> > arm64 here is if we could override smp_cond_acquire in such a way that
> > the atomic_read could be performed explicitly in the macro. That would
> > allow us to use an LDXR to set the exclusive monitor, which in turn
> > means we can issue a WFE and get a cheap wakeup when lock->val is
> > actually modified.
> > 
> > With the current scheme, there's not enough information expressed in the
> > "cond" parameter to perform this optimisation.
> 
> Right, but I'm having a hard time constructing something pretty that can
> do that. Lambda functions would be lovely, but we don't have those :/
> 
> While we can easily pass a pointer to an arbitrary type, we need
> an expression to evaluate the result of the pointer load to act as our
> condition.
> 
>   smp_cond_acquire(&lock->val.counter,
> 		   [](int val){ return !(val & _Q_LOCKED_PENDING_MASK); });
> 
> Would be nice, but alas.
> 
> The best we can do is hardcode a variable name; maybe something like:
> 
> #define smp_cond_acquire(ptr, expr) do {			\
> 	typeof(*ptr) val;					\
> 	while ((val = READ_ONCE(*ptr)), expr)			\
> 		cpu_relax();					\
> 	smp_rmb(); /* ctrl + rmb := acquire */			\
> } while (0)
> 
> Which would let us write:
> 
>   smp_cond_acquire(&lock->val.counter, !(val & _Q_LOCKED_PENDING_MASK));
> 
> 
> Thoughts?

That would certainly work for me, but I appreciate it's not pretty. We
could have an extra macro parameter for the name of the temporary
variable, if you wanted to make it explicit.

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/