linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] locking/pvqspinlock: Add lock holder CPU argument to pv

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: <20160420141949.GE3430@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date:	Wed, 20 Apr 2016 16:19:49 +0200
From:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:	Pan Xinhui <xinhui@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc:	Waiman Long <Waiman.Long@....com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Scott J Norton <scott.norton@....com>,
	Douglas Hatch <doug.hatch@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] locking/pvqspinlock: Add lock holder CPU argument to
 pv_wait()

On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 10:15:09PM +0800, Pan Xinhui wrote:
> So there is such case that we search the whole hashtable and the lock is not found. :(
> Waiman assume that if l = null, the lock is not stored. however the lock might be there actually.
> But to avoid the worst case I just mentioned above, it can quickly finish the lookup.


> >> +
> >> +			/*
> >> +			 * We try to locate the queue head pv_node by looking
> >> +			 * up the hash table. If it is not found, use the
> >> +			 * CPU in the previous node instead.
> >> +			 */
> >> +			hn = pv_lookup_hash(lock);
> >> +			if (!hn)
> >> +				hn = pn;
> > 
> > This is potentially expensive... it does not explain why this lookup can
> > fail etc.. nor mentioned that lock stealing caveat.
> >
> Yes, it's expensive. Normally, PPC phyp don't always need the correct
> holder. That means current vcpu can just give up its slice.  There is
> one lpar hvcall H_CONFER. I paste some spec below.

Ok, so if we can indeed scan the _entire_ hashtable, then we really
should not have that in common code. That's seriously expensive.