linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 01/34] Documentation/memory-barriers.txt: document __smb

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20160104132634-mutt-send-email-mst@redhat.com>
Date:	Mon, 4 Jan 2016 13:27:36 +0200
From:	"Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>
To:	Stefano Stabellini <stefano.stabellini@...citrix.com>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org,
	Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@...rix.com>,
	virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
	Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 01/34] Documentation/memory-barriers.txt: document
 __smb_mb()

On Mon, Jan 04, 2016 at 11:08:19AM +0000, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> On Wed, 30 Dec 2015, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > Signed-off-by: Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@...hat.com>
> > ---
> >  Documentation/memory-barriers.txt | 33 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-----
> >  1 file changed, 28 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/Documentation/memory-barriers.txt b/Documentation/memory-barriers.txt
> > index aef9487..a20f7ef 100644
> > --- a/Documentation/memory-barriers.txt
> > +++ b/Documentation/memory-barriers.txt
> > @@ -1655,17 +1655,18 @@ macro is a good place to start looking.
> >  SMP memory barriers are reduced to compiler barriers on uniprocessor compiled
> >  systems because it is assumed that a CPU will appear to be self-consistent,
> >  and will order overlapping accesses correctly with respect to itself.
> > +However, see the subsection on "Virtual Machine Guests" below.
> >  
> >  [!] Note that SMP memory barriers _must_ be used to control the ordering of
> >  references to shared memory on SMP systems, though the use of locking instead
> >  is sufficient.
> >  
> >  Mandatory barriers should not be used to control SMP effects, since mandatory
> > -barriers unnecessarily impose overhead on UP systems. They may, however, be
> > -used to control MMIO effects on accesses through relaxed memory I/O windows.
> > -These are required even on non-SMP systems as they affect the order in which
> > -memory operations appear to a device by prohibiting both the compiler and the
> > -CPU from reordering them.
> > +barriers impose unnecessary overhead on both SMP and UP systems. They may,
> > +however, be used to control MMIO effects on accesses through relaxed memory I/O
> > +windows.  These barriers are required even on non-SMP systems as they affect
> > +the order in which memory operations appear to a device by prohibiting both the
> > +compiler and the CPU from reordering them.
> >  
> >  
> >  There are some more advanced barrier functions:
> > @@ -2948,6 +2949,28 @@ The Alpha defines the Linux kernel's memory barrier model.
> >  
> >  See the subsection on "Cache Coherency" above.
> >  
> > +VIRTUAL MACHINE GUESTS
> > +-------------------
> > +
> > +Guests running within virtual machines might be affected by
> > +SMP effects even if the guest itself is compiled within
> 
>                                                     ^ without

Right - this is fixed in v2.
Could you review that one please?

> > +SMP support.
> > +
> > +This is an artifact of interfacing with an SMP host while
> > +running an UP kernel.
> > +
> > +Using mandatory barriers for this use-case would be possible
> > +but is often suboptimal.
> > +
> > +To handle this case optimally, low-level __smp_mb() etc macros are available.
> > +These have the same effect as smp_mb() etc when SMP is enabled, but generate
> > +identical code for SMP and non-SMP systems. For example, virtual machine guests
> > +should use __smp_mb() rather than smp_mb() when synchronizing against a
> > +(possibly SMP) host.
> > +
> > +These are equivalent to smp_mb() etc counterparts in all other respects,
> > +in particular, they do not control MMIO effects: to control
> > +MMIO effects, use mandatory barriers.
> >  
> >  ============
> >  EXAMPLE USES
> > -- 
> > MST
> > 
--
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/