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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Thu, 9 Nov 2017 09:24:08 -0800
From:   Davidlohr Bueso <dave@...olabs.net>
To:     Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>
Cc:     Andreas Dilger <adilger@...ger.ca>, Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>,
        Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>,
        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>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] lib/dlock-list: Scale dlock_lists_empty()

On Wed, 08 Nov 2017, Boqun Feng wrote:
>Or worse:
>
> 	 * CPU0				    CPU1
> 	 * dlock_list_add()                 dlock_lists_empty()
> 	 *					  smp_mb__before_atomic();
> 	 *				      [L] atomic_read(used_lists)
> 	 *   [S] atomic_inc(used_lists);
> 	 *       smp_mb__after_atomic();
>
>, in which case dlock_lists_empty() misses a increment of used_lists.
>
>That said, this may be fine for the usage of dlock_list. But I think the
>comments are confusing or wrong. The reason is you can not use barriers
>to order two memory ops on different CPUs, and usually we add comments
>like:

So I think that case is OK as CPU1 legitimately reads a 0, the problem
would be if we miss the inc it because we are doing spin_lock().

>
>	[S] ...			[S] ...
>	<barrier>		<barrier>
>	[L] ...			[L] ...

That is true.

>
>Davidlohr, could you try to improve the comments by finding both memory
>ops preceding and following the barriers? Maybe you will find those
>barriers are not necessary in the end.

Ok so for the dlock_list_add() the first barrier is so that the atomic_inc()
is not done inside the critical region, after the head->lock is taken.
The other barriers that follow I put such that the respective atomic op
is done before the list_add(), however thinking about it I don't think
they are really needed.

Regarding dlock_list_empty(), the smp_mb__before_atomic() is mainly for
pairing reasons; but at this point I don't see a respective counterpart
for the above diagram so I'm unclear.

Thanks,
Davidlohr
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (820 bytes)