linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH v2] membarrier: expedited private command

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: <20170801215408.12a621d6@roar.ozlabs.ibm.com>
Date:   Tue, 1 Aug 2017 21:54:08 +1000
From:   Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@...il.com>
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:     Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>,
        Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>,
        "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>,
        Andrew Hunter <ahh@...gle.com>,
        maged michael <maged.michael@...il.com>,
        gromer <gromer@...gle.com>, Avi Kivity <avi@...lladb.com>,
        Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
        Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@...belt.com>,
        Dave Watson <davejwatson@...com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2] membarrier: expedited private command

On Tue, 1 Aug 2017 13:00:23 +0200
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:

> On Tue, Aug 01, 2017 at 08:39:28PM +1000, Nicholas Piggin wrote:

> > Right, I just don't see what real problem this opens up that you don't
> > already have when you are not hard partitioned, therefore it doesn't
> > make sense to add a slowdown to the context switch fastpath to close
> > one hole in the sieve.
> > 
> > Completely recognizing that other architectures can do it without
> > taking rq lock at all and will not be forced to do so.  
> 
> If we can limit this to hard partitioned, that would be good indeed.
> 
> I'm just trying to avoid having two implementation of this thing. At the
> same time I very much understand your reluctance to add this barrier.

Well I think we could have some kind of
for_each_cpu_where_this_process_is_running macro that is needed to
abstract the arch details.

Presumably we're already going to get two implementations of that one --
I can't imagine x86 would be happy with doing a for_all_cpus iteration
just because arm does not have the cpumask. powerpc will only make that
3 :)

> 
> In any case, supposing we can do that intent thing. How horrible would
> something like:
> 
> 
>   context_switch()
>     if (unlikely(mm->needs_barrier))
>       smp_mb__after_unlock_lock();
> 
> 
> be? We only need the extra barrier when we switch _into_ mm's that care
> about sys_membarrier() in the first place. At which point they pay the
> price.

Not beautiful :) and it would also have to have an arch speicific bit on
the other side. Although yes it gives a different way to reduce cost without
rq.

So Paul and googling filled me in on the importance of this syscall. Also
I do appreciate the concern about taking rq lock. I just think maybe we
(powerpc) pay a few more cycles in the new syscall rather than context
switch. It will take a little while to get a good idea of performance and
behaviour on bigger systems where this will matter most.