linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3] locking/qrwlock: Let qrwlock has same layout regardless of the endian

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]

Message-Id: <51cf6c4c-3626-c03d-a88a-955e14c6a4e5@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date:	Fri, 15 Jul 2016 14:28:29 +0800
From:	panxinhui <xinhui@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	xinhui <xinhui.pan@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org,
	mingo@...hat.com, arnd@...db.de, Waiman.Long@....com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] locking/qrwlock: Let qrwlock has same layout
 regardless of the endian



在 16/7/14 17:37, Peter Zijlstra 写道:
> On Thu, Jul 14, 2016 at 03:44:42PM +0800, xinhui wrote:
>>> OK, so I poked at this a bit and I ended up with the below; but now
>>> qrwlock and qspinlock are inconsistent; although I suspect qspinlock is
>>> similarly busted wrt endian muck.
>>>
>>> Not sure what to do..
>>>
>> Lets talk about the qspinlock.
>>
>> for x86, We has already assumed that ->locked sit at the low 8 bits, as is
>> smp_store_release((u8 *)lock, 0);
>
> Right, true on x86 though :-) I noticed your PPC patches have a +3 in
> there conditional on __BIG_ENDIAN.
>
>> Then we can do a favor, export ->locked but other fields as reserved.
>> say
>>
>> struct __qspinlock_unlcok_interface {/* what name is better?*/
>> #ifdef __LITTLE_ENDIAN
>> 		u8      locked;
>> 		u8      reserved[3]; /* do not touch it, internally use only  */
>> #else
>> 		u8      reserved[3];
>> 		u8      locked;
>> #endif
>> };
>
> Right, maybe, although something like:
>
> static inline u8 *__qspinlock_lock_byte(struct qspinlock *lock)
> {
> 	return (u8 *)lock + 3 * IS_BUILTIN(__BIG_ENDIAN);
> }
>
> static inline u8 *__qrwlock_write_byte(struct qrwlock *lock)
> {
> 	return (u8 *)lock + 3 * IS_BUILTIN(__BIG_ENDIAN);
> }
>
> is shorter?
>

yes, looks simpler. I will take them into my patch. thanks


>
>>>  /*
>>> + * Writer states & reader shift and bias.
>>> + *
>>> + *       | +0 | +1 | +2 | +3 |
>>> + *   ----+----+----+----+----+
>>> + *    LE | 12 | 34 | 56 | 78 | 0x12345678
>>> + *   ----+----+----+----+----+
>>> + *    BE | 78 | 56 | 34 | 12 | 0x12345678
>>> + *   ----+----+----+----+----+
>>> + *       | wr |      rd      |
>>> + *       +----+----+----+----+
>>> + *
>>>   */
>>
>> very clearly. :)
>
> I did one for the qspinlock code too..
>

hmm, pretty nice, I think I can include them into my patch too while I am at it.

thanks
xinhui

> diff --git a/kernel/locking/qspinlock.c b/kernel/locking/qspinlock.c
> index b2caec7315af..9191dc454e96 100644
> --- a/kernel/locking/qspinlock.c
> +++ b/kernel/locking/qspinlock.c
> @@ -120,6 +120,23 @@ static inline __pure struct mcs_spinlock *decode_tail(u32 tail)
>   *
>   * This internal structure is also used by the set_locked function which
>   * is not restricted to _Q_PENDING_BITS == 8.
> + *
> + *       | +0 | +1 | +2 | +3 |
> + *   ----+----+----+----+----+
> + *    LE | 78 | 56 | 34 | 12 |	val = 0x12345678
> + *   ----+----+----+----+----+
> + *    LE | 34 | 12 |		locked_pending = 0x1234
> + *   ----+----+----+----+----+
> + *       | L  | P  |  tail   |
> + *       +----+----+----+----+
> + *
> + *   ----+----+----+----+----+
> + *    BE | 12 | 34 | 56 | 78 |	val = 0x12345678
> + *   ----+----+----+----+----+
> + *    BE           | 12 | 34 |	locked_pending = 0x1234
> + *   ----+----+----+----+----+
> + *       |  tail   | P  | L  |
> + *       +----+----+----+----+
>   */
>  struct __qspinlock {
>  	union {
>