linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4] lib/dlock-list: Scale dlock_lists

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: <4486fb94-a9fc-5bee-5241-e1e7558eeaa7@redhat.com>
Date:   Tue, 7 Nov 2017 13:57:10 -0500
From:   Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>
To:     Andreas Dilger <adilger@...ger.ca>, Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
Cc:     Davidlohr Bueso <dave@...olabs.net>,
        Alexander Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
        Jan Kara <jack@...e.com>,
        Jeff Layton <jlayton@...chiereds.net>,
        "J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@...ldses.org>,
        Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
        Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux-foundation.org>,
        linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
        Dave Chinner <dchinner@...hat.com>,
        Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] lib/dlock-list: Scale dlock_lists_empty()

On 11/07/2017 12:59 PM, Andreas Dilger wrote:
> On Nov 7, 2017, at 4:59 AM, Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz> wrote:
>> On Mon 06-11-17 10:47:08, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
>>> +	/*
>>> +	 * Serialize dlist->used_lists such that a 0->1 transition is not
>>> +	 * missed by another thread checking if any of the dlock lists are
>>> +	 * used.
>>> +	 *
>>> +	 * CPU0				    CPU1
>>> +	 * dlock_list_add()                 dlock_lists_empty()
>>> +	 *   [S] atomic_inc(used_lists);
>>> +	 *       smp_mb__after_atomic();
>>> +	 *					  smp_mb__before_atomic();
>>> +	 *				      [L] atomic_read(used_lists)
>>> +	 *       list_add()
>>> +	 */
>>> +	smp_mb__before_atomic();
>>> +	return !atomic_read(&dlist->used_lists);
> Just a general kernel programming question here - I thought the whole point
> of atomics is that they are, well, atomic across all CPUs so there is no
> need for a memory barrier?  If there is a need for a memory barrier for
> each atomic access (assuming it isn't accessed under another lock, which would
> make the use of atomic types pointless, IMHO) then I'd think there is a lot
> of code in the kernel that isn't doing this properly.
>
> What am I missing here?

Atomic update and memory barrier are 2 different things. Atomic update
means other CPUs see either the value before or after the update. They
won't see anything in between. For a counter, it means we won't miss any
counts. However, not all atomic operations give an ordering guarantee.
The atomic_read() and atomic_inc() are examples that do not provide
memory ordering guarantee. See Documentation/memory-barriers.txt for
more information about it.

A CPU can perform atomic operations 1 & 2 in program order, but other
CPUs may see operation 2 first before operation 1. Here memory barrier
can be used to guarantee that other CPUs see the memory updates in
certain order.

Hope this help.
Longman