linux-kernel - Re: [GIT PULL rcu/next] RCU commits for 4.13

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: <CA+55aFwLq5oPvY5HwpKq9LkCuQ5No7O5g=+ij1T68ONu-gOm_Q@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Wed, 28 Jun 2017 17:05:46 -0700
From:   Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To:     Paul McKenney <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc:     Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>,
        Andrea Parri <parri.andrea@...il.com>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        priyalee.kushwaha@...el.com,
        Stanisław Drozd <drozdziak1@...il.com>,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>, ldr709@...il.com,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Josh Triplett <josh@...htriplett.org>,
        Nicolas Pitre <nico@...aro.org>,
        Krister Johansen <kjlx@...pleofstupid.com>,
        Vegard Nossum <vegard.nossum@...cle.com>, dcb314@...mail.com,
        Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@...el.com>,
        Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
        Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
        Luc Maranget <luc.maranget@...ia.fr>,
        Jade Alglave <j.alglave@....ac.uk>
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL rcu/next] RCU commits for 4.13

On Wed, Jun 28, 2017 at 4:54 PM, Paul E. McKenney
<paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
>
> Linus, are you dead-set against defining spin_unlock_wait() to be
> spin_lock + spin_unlock?  For example, is the current x86 implementation
> of spin_unlock_wait() really a non-negotiable hard requirement?  Or
> would you be willing to live with the spin_lock + spin_unlock semantics?

So I think the "same as spin_lock + spin_unlock" semantics are kind of insane.

One of the issues is that the same as "spin_lock + spin_unlock" is
basically now architecture-dependent. Is it really the
architecture-dependent ordering you want to define this as?

So I just think it's a *bad* definition. If somebody wants something
that is exactly equivalent to spin_lock+spin_unlock, then dammit, just
do *THAT*. It's completely pointless to me to define
spin_unlock_wait() in those terms.

And if it's not equivalent to the *architecture* behavior of
spin_lock+spin_unlock, then I think it should be descibed in terms
that aren't about the architecture implementation (so you shouldn't
describe it as "spin_lock+spin_unlock", you should describe it in
terms of memory barrier semantics.

And if we really have to use the spin_lock+spinunlock semantics for
this, then what is the advantage of spin_unlock_wait at all, if it
doesn't fundamentally avoid some locking overhead of just taking the
spinlock in the first place?

And if we can't use a cheaper model, maybe we should just get rid of
it entirely?

Finally: if the memory barrier semantics are exactly the same, and
it's purely about avoiding some nasty contention case, I think the
concept is broken - contention is almost never an actual issue, and if
it is, the problem is much deeper than spin_unlock_wait().

                  Linus