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: <5717C173.60103@hpe.com>
Date:	Wed, 20 Apr 2016 13:50:43 -0400
From:	Waiman Long <waiman.long@....com>
To:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
CC:	Pan Xinhui <xinhui@...ux.vnet.ibm.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 04/20/2016 10:19 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> 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.

No, it should not scan the entire hashtable and there is no point in 
doing so.

Cheers,
Longman