linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/2] mm: add PageWaiters indicating tasks are waiting for a page bit

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]

Date:   Thu, 29 Dec 2016 15:26:15 +1000
From:   Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@...il.com>
To:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:     Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
        Bob Peterson <rpeterso@...hat.com>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Steven Whitehouse <swhiteho@...hat.com>,
        Andrew Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
        Andreas Gruenbacher <agruenba@...hat.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        linux-mm <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
        Mel Gorman <mgorman@...hsingularity.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] mm: add PageWaiters indicating tasks are waiting
 for a page bit

On Wed, 28 Dec 2016 20:16:56 -0800
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:

> On Wed, Dec 28, 2016 at 8:08 PM, Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@...il.com> wrote:
> >
> > Okay. The name could be a bit better though I think, for readability.
> > Just a BUILD_BUG_ON if it is not constant and correct bit numbers?  
> 
> I have a slightly edited patch - moved the comments around and added
> some new comments (about both the sign bit, but also about how the
> smp_mb() shouldn't be necessary even for the non-atomic fallback).

That's a good point -- they're in the same byte, so all architectures
will be able to avoid the extra barrier regardless of how the
primitives are implemented. Good.

> 
> I also did a BUILD_BUG_ON(), except the other way around - keeping it
> about the sign bit in the byte, just just verifying that yes,
> PG_waiters is that sign bit.

Yep. I still don't like the name, but now you've got PG_waiters
commented there at least. I'll have to live with it.

If we get more cases that want to use a similar function, we might make
a more general primitive for architectures that can optimize these multi
bit ops better than x86. Actually even x86 would prefer to do load ;
cmpxchg rather than bitop ; load for the cases where condition code can't
be used to check result.

> 
> > BTW. I just notice in your patch too that you didn't use "nr" in the
> > generic version.  
> 
> And I fixed that too.
> 
> Of course, I didn't test the changes (apart from building it). But
> I've been running the previous version since yesterday, so far no
> issues.

It looks good to me.

Thanks,
Nick