linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] locking/osq: Drop the overload of osq lock

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

Date:	Sat, 25 Jun 2016 18:15:40 +0200
From:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:	Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>
Cc:	Pan Xinhui <xinhui.pan@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, mingo@...hat.com, dave@...olabs.net,
	will.deacon@....com, Waiman.Long@....com, benh@...nel.crashing.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] locking/osq: Drop the overload of osq lock

On Sat, Jun 25, 2016 at 11:21:30PM +0800, Boqun Feng wrote:
> So on PPC, we have lppaca::yield_count to detect when an vcpu is
> preempted, if the yield_count is even, the vcpu is running, otherwise it
> is preempted(__spin_yield() is a user of this).
> 
> Therefore it makes more sense we
> 
> 		if (need_resched() || vcpu_is_preempted(old))
> 
> here, and implement vcpu_is_preempted() on PPC as
> 
> bool vcpu_is_preempted(int cpu)
> {
> 	return !!(be32_to_cpu(lppaca_of(cpu).yield_count) & 1)
> }
> 
> Thoughts?

Would that not have issues where the owner cpu is kept running but the
spinner (ie. _this_ vcpu) gets preempted? I would think that in that
case we too want to stop spinning.

Although, if all vcpus are scheduled equal, it might not matter on
average.