linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4] ipc/msg: Implement lockless pipelined wakeups

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: <20160721001612.GA3066@linux-80c1.suse>
Date:	Wed, 20 Jul 2016 17:16:12 -0700
From:	Davidlohr Bueso <dave@...olabs.net>
To:	Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, tglx@...utronix.de,
	Manfred Spraul <manfred@...orfullife.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] ipc/msg: Implement lockless pipelined wakeups

On Wed, 20 Jul 2016, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:

>This patch moves the wakeup_process() invocation so it is not done under
>the perm->lock by making use of a lockless wake_q. With this change, the
>waiter is woken up once the message has been assigned and it does not
>need to loop on SMP if the message points to NULL. In the signal case we
>still need to check the pointer under the lock to verify the state.
>
>This change should also avoid the introduction of preempt_disable() in
>-RT which avoids a busy-loop which pools for the NULL -> !NULL
>change if the waiter has a higher priority compared to the waker.
>
>This has been tested with Manred's pmsg-shared tool on a "AMD A10-7800
>Radeon R7, 12 Compute Cores 4C+8G":
>
>test             |   before   |   after    | diff
>-----------------|------------|------------|----------
>pmsg-shared 8 60 | 19,347,422 | 30,442,191 | + ~57.34 %
>pmsg-shared 4 60 | 21,367,197 | 35,743,458 | + ~67.28 %
>pmsg-shared 2 60 | 22,884,224 | 24,278,200 | +  ~6.09 %
>
>v3???v4:  - drop smp_wmb in the error case as per Davidlohr
>v2???v3:  - add smp_[rw]mb back including the usage graphic of them
>        - use READ_ONCE / WRITE_ONCE after the removal of the volatile
>	  attribute.
>v1???v2:
>	- msg_receiver.r_msg is no longer volatile. After all we no
>	  longer have that busy loop.
>	- added a comment while we do wake_q_add() followed by the
>	  assignment of ->r_msg  and not the other way around.
>
>Cc: Davidlohr Bueso <dave@...olabs.net>
>Cc: Manfred Spraul <manfred@...orfullife.com>
>Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
>Signed-off-by: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>

This looks good to me, and is now very similar to the posix flavor of
msg queues in this regard. fwiw I threw it under ltp msgqueue specific
tests without things breaking. Just a small comments below, otherwise
feel free to add my:

Reviewed-by: Davidlohr Bueso <dave@...olabs.net>

>-static inline int pipelined_send(struct msg_queue *msq, struct msg_msg *msg)
>+static inline int pipelined_send(struct msg_queue *msq, struct msg_msg *msg,
>+				 struct wake_q_head *wake_q)
> {
> 	struct msg_receiver *msr, *t;
>
>@@ -577,27 +571,23 @@ static inline int pipelined_send(struct msg_queue *msq, struct msg_msg *msg)
>
> 			list_del(&msr->r_list);
> 			if (msr->r_maxsize < msg->m_ts) {
>-				/* initialize pipelined send ordering */
>-				msr->r_msg = NULL;
>-				wake_up_process(msr->r_tsk);
>-				/* barrier (B) see barrier comment below */
>-				smp_wmb();
>-				msr->r_msg = ERR_PTR(-E2BIG);
>+				WRITE_ONCE(msr->r_msg, ERR_PTR(-E2BIG));
>+				/*
>+				 * rely on wake_q_add() barrier instead of
>+				 * explicit smp_wmb
>+				 */
>+				wake_q_add(wake_q, msr->r_tsk);
> 			} else {
>-				msr->r_msg = NULL;
> 				msq->q_lrpid = task_pid_vnr(msr->r_tsk);
> 				msq->q_rtime = get_seconds();
>-				wake_up_process(msr->r_tsk);
> 				/*
>-				 * Ensure that the wakeup is visible before
>-				 * setting r_msg, as the receiving can otherwise
>-				 * exit - once r_msg is set, the receiver can
>-				 * continue. See lockless receive part 1 and 2
>-				 * in do_msgrcv(). Barrier (B).
>+				 * Ensure that we see the new r_msg after the
>+				 * wake up or the old value forcing to take the
>+				 * queue lock.
> 				 */
>-				smp_wmb();
>-				msr->r_msg = msg;
>-
>+				WRITE_ONCE(msr->r_msg, msg);
>+				smp_wmb(); /* barrier (B) */
>+				wake_q_add(wake_q, msr->r_tsk);

Just as with expunge_all and the E2BIG case, could you remove that explicit
barrier (B) and just rely on wake_q_add?

Thanks,
Davidlohr