linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 0/9] Remove spin_unlock

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: <Pine.LNX.4.44L0.1707061534010.1581-100000@iolanthe.rowland.org>
Date:   Thu, 6 Jul 2017 15:37:31 -0400 (EDT)
From:   Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
cc:     "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        David Laight <David.Laight@...LAB.COM>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "netfilter-devel@...r.kernel.org" <netfilter-devel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        "oleg@...hat.com" <oleg@...hat.com>,
        "akpm@...ux-foundation.org" <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        "mingo@...hat.com" <mingo@...hat.com>,
        "dave@...olabs.net" <dave@...olabs.net>,
        "manfred@...orfullife.com" <manfred@...orfullife.com>,
        "tj@...nel.org" <tj@...nel.org>, "arnd@...db.de" <arnd@...db.de>,
        "linux-arch@...r.kernel.org" <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>,
        "will.deacon@....com" <will.deacon@....com>,
        "parri.andrea@...il.com" <parri.andrea@...il.com>,
        "torvalds@...ux-foundation.org" <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/9] Remove spin_unlock_wait()

On Thu, 6 Jul 2017, Peter Zijlstra wrote:

> On Thu, Jul 06, 2017 at 12:49:12PM -0400, Alan Stern wrote:
> > On Thu, 6 Jul 2017, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > 
> > > On Thu, Jul 06, 2017 at 06:10:47PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > > On Thu, Jul 06, 2017 at 08:21:10AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > > > And yes, there are architecture-specific optimizations for an
> > > > > empty spin_lock()/spin_unlock() critical section, and the current
> > > > > arch_spin_unlock_wait() implementations show some of these optimizations.
> > > > > But I expect that performance benefits would need to be demonstrated at
> > > > > the system level.
> > > > 
> > > > I do in fact contended there are any optimizations for the exact
> > > > lock+unlock semantics.
> > > 
> > > You lost me on this one.
> > > 
> > > > The current spin_unlock_wait() is weaker. Most notably it will not (with
> > > > exception of ARM64/PPC for other reasons) cause waits on other CPUs.
> > > 
> > > Agreed, weaker semantics allow more optimizations.  So use cases needing
> > > only the weaker semantics should more readily show performance benefits.
> > > But either way, we need compelling use cases, and I do not believe that
> > > any of the existing spin_unlock_wait() calls are compelling.  Perhaps I
> > > am confused, but I am not seeing it for any of them.
> > 
> > If somebody really wants the full spin_unlock_wait semantics and
> > doesn't want to interfere with other CPUs, wouldn't synchronize_sched()
> > or something similar do the job?  It wouldn't be as efficient as
> > lock+unlock, but it also wouldn't affect other CPUs.
> 
> So please don't do that. That'll create massive pain for RT. Also I
> don't think it works. The whole point was that spin_unlock_wait() is
> _cheaper_ than lock()+unlock(). If it gets to be more expensive there is
> absolutely no point in using it.

Of course; that is obvious.

I was making a rhetorical point: You should not try to justify
spin_unlock_wait() on the basis that it doesn't cause waits on other
CPUs.

Alan Stern