linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] locking/qspinlock: Use atomic_sub_return_release in queued_spin

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Tue, 14 Jun 2016 14:04:46 +0200
From:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:	Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>
Cc:	Davidlohr Bueso <dave@...olabs.net>,
	Pan Xinhui <xinhui.pan@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org,
	arnd@...db.de, waiman.long@...com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] locking/qspinlock: Use atomic_sub_return_release in
 queued_spin_unlock

On Tue, Jun 14, 2016 at 01:52:53PM +0800, Boqun Feng wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 13, 2016 at 12:45:23PM -0700, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
> > On Fri, 03 Jun 2016, Pan Xinhui wrote:
> > 
> > > The existing version uses a heavy barrier while only release semantics
> > > is required. So use atomic_sub_return_release instead.
> > > 
> > > Suggested-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@...radead.org>
> > > Signed-off-by: Pan Xinhui <xinhui.pan@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
> > 
> > I just noticed this change in -tip and, while I know that saving a barrier
> > in core spinlock paths is perhaps a worthy exception, I cannot help but
> > wonder if this is the begging of the end for smp__{before,after}_atomic().
> 
> This is surely a good direction I think, that is using _acquire and
> _release primitives to replace those barriers. However, I think we
> should do this carefully, because the _acquire and _release primitives
> are RCpc because they are on PPC, IOW, a ACQUIRE and RELEASE pair is not
> a full barrier nor provides global transivity. I'm worried about there
> are some users depending on the full-barrier semantics, which means we
> must audit each use carefully before we make the change.

Very good point indeed. And yes, the whole RCpc thing, but also the
tricky wandering store on PPC/ARM64 ACQUIRE makes for lots of 'fun' we
can do without.

> Besides, if we want to do the conversion, we'd better have _acquire and
> _release variants for non-value-returning atomic operations.

Indeed, I've been tempted to introduce those before.

> I remember you were working on those variants. How is that going?

Ah, if Davidlohr is working on that, brilliant, less work for me ;-)