linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 06/10] MIPS: pm-cps: Use MIPS standard lightweight ordering barrier

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: <4c91d6c3-8141-594a-562c-96ea56776d2e@imgtec.com>
Date:   Wed, 31 Aug 2016 14:36:26 +0100
From:   Matt Redfearn <matt.redfearn@...tec.com>
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
CC:     Ralf Baechle <ralf@...ux-mips.org>, <linux-mips@...ux-mips.org>,
        Adam Buchbinder <adam.buchbinder@...il.com>,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
        Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@...ionext.com>,
        <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>,
        Markos Chandras <markos.chandras@...tec.com>,
        Paul Burton <paul.burton@...tec.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 06/10] MIPS: pm-cps: Use MIPS standard lightweight
 ordering barrier

On 31/08/16 12:48, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 31, 2016 at 11:44:35AM +0100, Matt Redfearn wrote:
>> Since R2 of the MIPS architecture, SYNC(0x10) has been an optional but
>> architecturally defined ordering barrier. If a CPU does not implement it,
>> the arch specifies that it must fall back to SYNC(0).
>>
>> Define the barrier type and always use it in the pm-cps code rather than
>> falling back to the heavyweight sync(0) such that we can benefit from
>> the lighter weight sync.
>>
> Changelog does not explain what 0x10 is, nor why its sufficient for this
> case.

Hi Peter,

The code previously had 0x10 as a magic number, this patch just replaces 
that with a #defined name. The value is documented in the MIPS64 
instruction set manual, https://imgtec.com/?do-download=4302, table 6.5.

This sync type has been standard since MIPSr2. That document also states 
that "If an implementation does not use one of these non-zero values to 
define a different synchronization behavior, then that non-zero value of 
stype must act the same as stype zero completion barrier." As such, 
stype_ordering can always be set to this sync type rather than setting 
it only for certain CPUs.

Thanks,
Matt

>
> Changelog also fails to explain why you do this.
> How do you expect anybody to review this?