linux-kernel - Re: [RESEND PATCH v5] locking/pvqspinlock: Relax cmpxchg's to improve performance on some archs

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: <20170821105508.j3p4zv7mdojpyb7e@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date:   Mon, 21 Aug 2017 12:55:08 +0200
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:     Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>
Cc:     Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Pan Xinhui <xinhui@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>,
        Andrea Parri <parri.andrea@...il.com>,
        Paul McKenney <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [RESEND PATCH v5] locking/pvqspinlock: Relax cmpxchg's to
 improve performance on some archs

On Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 07:40:35PM +0100, Will Deacon wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 14, 2017 at 08:47:11PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Mon, Aug 14, 2017 at 01:01:22PM +0100, Will Deacon wrote:
> > > Yeah, that's right, you can't use the STXR status flag to create control
> > > dependencies.
> > 
> > Just for my elucidation; you can't use it to create a control dependency
> > on the store, but you can use it to create a control dependency on the
> > corresponding load, right?
> 
> Hmm, sort of, but I'd say that the reads are really ordered due to
> read-after-read ordering in that case. Control dependencies to loads
> don't give you order.

No, I meant _from_ the LL load, not _to_ a later load.

> > Now, IIRC, we've defined control dependencies as being LOAD->STORE
> > ordering, so in that respect nothing is lost. But maybe we should
> > explicitly mention that if the LOAD is part of an (otherwise) atomic RmW
> > the STORE is not constrained.
> 
> I could well be misreading your suggestion, but it feels like that's too
> weak. You can definitely still have control dependencies off the LL part
> of the LL/SC pair, just not off the SC part.
> 
> E.g. this version of LB is forbidden on arm64:
> 
> P0:
> if (atomic_inc_return_relaxed(&x) == 2)
> 	atomic_set(&y, 1);
> 
> P1:
> if (atomic_inc_return_relaxed(&y) == 2)
> 	atomic_set(&x, 1);
> 
> Perhaps when you say "the STORE", you mean the store in the atomic RmW,
> rather than the store in the LOAD->STORE control dependency?

Yes. So I was looking to exclude (SC) STORE -> STORE order through
control dependencies.