linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] spin loop primitives for busy waiting

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: <877ezwd3jj.fsf@concordia.ellerman.id.au>
Date:   Wed, 28 Jun 2017 16:33:52 +1000
From:   Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>
To:     Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@...il.com>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:     linux-arch@...r.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] spin loop primitives for busy waiting

Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@...il.com> writes:

> Current busy-wait loops are implemented by repeatedly calling cpu_relax()
> to give an arch option for a low-latency option to improve power and/or
> SMT resource contention.
>
> This poses some difficulties for powerpc, which has SMT priority setting
> instructions (priorities determine how ifetch cycles are apportioned).
> powerpc's cpu_relax() is implemented by setting a low priority then
> setting normal priority. This has several problems:
>
>  - Changing thread priority can have some execution cost and potential
>    impact to other threads in the core. It's inefficient to execute them
>    every time around a busy-wait loop.
>
>  - Depending on implementation details, a `low ; medium` sequence may
>    not have much if any affect. Some software with similar pattern
>    actually inserts a lot of nops between, in order to cause a few fetch
>    cycles with the low priority.
>
>  - The busy-wait loop runs with regular priority. This might only be a few
>    fetch cycles, but if there are several threads running such loops, they
>    could cause a noticable impact on a non-idle thread.
>
> Implement spin_begin, spin_end primitives that can be used around busy
> wait loops, which default to no-ops. And spin_cpu_relax which defaults to
> cpu_relax.
>
> This will allow architectures to hook the entry and exit of busy-wait
> loops, and will allow powerpc to set low SMT priority at entry, and
> normal priority at exit.
>
> Suggested-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
> Signed-off-by: Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@...il.com>
> ---
>
> Since last time:
> - Fixed spin_do_cond with initial test as suggested by Linus.
> - Renamed it to spin_until_cond, which reads a little better.
>
>  include/linux/processor.h | 70 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>  1 file changed, 70 insertions(+)
>  create mode 100644 include/linux/processor.h

I'm gonna merge this via the powerpc tree unless anyone objects.

cheers