linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH -v3 7/8] locking: Move smp_cond_load_acquire() and friends into asm-generic/barrier.h

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: <20160601171322.GU3190@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date:	Wed, 1 Jun 2016 19:13:22 +0200
From:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:	Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>
Cc:	Waiman Long <waiman.long@....com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, manfred@...orfullife.com,
	dave@...olabs.net, paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
	boqun.feng@...il.com, tj@...nel.org, pablo@...filter.org,
	kaber@...sh.net, davem@...emloft.net, oleg@...hat.com,
	netfilter-devel@...r.kernel.org, sasha.levin@...cle.com,
	hofrat@...dl.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH -v3 7/8] locking: Move smp_cond_load_acquire() and
 friends into asm-generic/barrier.h

On Wed, Jun 01, 2016 at 03:07:14PM +0100, Will Deacon wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 01, 2016 at 02:45:41PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 01, 2016 at 01:13:33PM +0100, Will Deacon wrote:
> > > On Wed, Jun 01, 2016 at 02:06:54PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > 
> > > > Works for me; but that would loose using cmpwait() for
> > > > !smp_cond_load_acquire() spins, you fine with that?
> > > > 
> > > > The two conversions in the patch were both !acquire spins.
> > > 
> > > Maybe we could go the whole hog and add smp_cond_load_relaxed?
> > 
> > What about say the cmpxchg loops in queued_write_lock_slowpath()
> > ? Would that be something you'd like to use wfe for?
> 
> Without actually running the code on real hardware, it's hard to say
> for sure. I notice that those loops are using cpu_relax_lowlatency
> at present and we *know* that we're next in the queue (i.e. we're just
> waiting for existing readers to drain), so the benefit of wfe is somewhat
> questionable here and I don't think we'd want to add that initially.

OK, we can always change our minds anyway. OK I'll respin/fold/massage
the series to make it go away.