linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH V3] powerpc: Implement {cmp}xchg for u8 and u16

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, 25 Apr 2016 18:10:51 +0800
From:	Pan Xinhui <xinhui@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
CC:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org,
	benh@...nel.crashing.org, paulus@...ba.org, mpe@...erman.id.au,
	boqun.feng@...il.com, paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
	tglx@...utronix.de
Subject: Re: [PATCH V3] powerpc: Implement {cmp}xchg for u8 and u16


On 2016年04月22日 00:13, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 21, 2016 at 11:35:07PM +0800, Pan Xinhui wrote:
>> yes, you are right. more load/store will be done in C code.
>> However such xchg_u8/u16 is just used by qspinlock now. and I did not see any performance regression.
>> So just wrote in C, for simple. :)
> 
> Which is fine; but worthy of a note in your Changelog.
> 
will do that.

>> Of course I have done xchg tests.
>> we run code just like xchg((u8*)&v, j++); in several threads.
>> and the result is,
>> [  768.374264] use time[1550072]ns in xchg_u8_asm
>> [  768.377102] use time[2826802]ns in xchg_u8_c
>>
>> I think this is because there is one more load in C.
>> If possible, we can move such code in asm-generic/.
> 
> So I'm not actually _that_ familiar with the PPC LL/SC implementation;
> but there are things a CPU can do to optimize these loops.
> 
> For example, a CPU might choose to not release the exclusive hold of the
> line for a number of cycles, except when it passes SC or an interrupt
> happens. This way there's a smaller chance the SC fails and inhibits
> forward progress.
I am not sure if there is such hardware optimization.

> 
> By doing the modification outside of the LL/SC you loose such
> advantages.
> 
> And yes, doing a !exclusive load prior to the exclusive load leads to an
> even bigger window where the data can get changed out from under you.
> 
you are right.
We have observed such data change during the two different loads.