| 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
| ||
|
Message-Id: <20180627191124.GE3593@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2018 12:11:24 -0700
From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Joel Fernandes <joel@...lfernandes.org>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, mingo@...nel.org,
jiangshanlai@...il.com, dipankar@...ibm.com,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com,
josh@...htriplett.org, tglx@...utronix.de, rostedt@...dmis.org,
dhowells@...hat.com, edumazet@...gle.com, fweisbec@...il.com,
oleg@...hat.com, kernel-team@...roid.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH tip/core/rcu 16/27] rcu: Add comment documenting how
rcu_seq_snap works
On Wed, Jun 27, 2018 at 11:27:26AM -0700, Joel Fernandes wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 27, 2018 at 10:54:36AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 26, 2018 at 09:39:13PM -0700, Joel Fernandes wrote:
> > > On Tue, Jun 26, 2018 at 07:30:55PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Jun 25, 2018 at 05:35:02PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > > > +/*
> > > > > + * rcu_seq_snap - Take a snapshot of the update side's sequence number.
> > > > > + *
> > > > > + * This function returns the earliest value of the grace-period sequence number
> > > > > + * that will indicate that a full grace period has elapsed since the current
> > > > > + * time. Once the grace-period sequence number has reached this value, it will
> > > > > + * be safe to invoke all callbacks that have been registered prior to the
> > > > > + * current time. This value is the current grace-period number plus two to the
> > > > > + * power of the number of low-order bits reserved for state, then rounded up to
> > > > > + * the next value in which the state bits are all zero.
> > > >
> > > > If you complete that by saying _why_ you need to round up there, then
> > > > the below verbiage is completely redundant.
> > > >
> > > > > + * In the current design, RCU_SEQ_STATE_MASK=3 and the least significant bit of
> > > > > + * the seq is used to track if a GP is in progress or not. Given this, it is
> > > > > + * sufficient if we add (6+1) and mask with ~3 to get the next GP. Let's see
> > > > > + * why with an example:
> > > > > + *
> > > > > + * Say the current seq is 12 which is 0b1100 (GP is 3 and state bits are 0b00).
> > > > > + * To get to the next GP number of 4, we have to add 0b100 to this (0x1 << 2)
> > > > > + * to account for the shift due to 2 state bits. Now, if the current seq is
> > > > > + * 13 (GP is 3 and state bits are 0b01), then it means the current grace period
> > > > > + * is already in progress so the next GP that a future call back will be queued
> > > > > + * to run at is GP+2 = 5, not 4. To account for the extra +1, we just overflow
> > > > > + * the 2 lower bits by adding 0b11. In case the lower bit was set, the overflow
> > > > > + * will cause the extra +1 to the GP, along with the usual +1 explained before.
> > > > > + * This gives us GP+2. Finally we mask the lower to bits by ~0x3 in case the
> > > > > + * overflow didn't occur. This masking is needed because in case RCU was idle
> > > > > + * (no GP in progress so lower 2 bits are 0b00), then the overflow of the lower
> > > > > + * 2 state bits wouldn't occur, so we mask to zero out those lower 2 bits.
> > > > > + *
> > > > > + * In other words, the next seq can be obtained by (0b11 + 0b100) & (~0b11)
> > > > > + * which can be generalized to:
> > > > > + * seq + (RCU_SEQ_STATE_MASK + (RCU_SEQ_STATE_MASK + 1)) & (~RCU_SEQ_STATE_MASK)
> > > > > + */
> > > >
> > > > Is the below not much simpler:
> > > >
> > > > > static inline unsigned long rcu_seq_snap(unsigned long *sp)
> > > > > {
> > > > > unsigned long s;
> > > >
> > > > s = smp_load_aquire(sp);
> > > >
> > > > /* Add one GP */
> > > > s += 1 << RCU_SEQ_CTR_SHIFT;
> > > >
> > > > /* Complete any pending state by rounding up */
> > >
> > > I would suggest this comment be changed to "Add another GP if there was a
> > > pending state".
> > >
> > > > s = __ALIGN_MASK(s, RCU_SEQ_STATE_MASK);
> > > >
> > >
> > > I agree with Peter's suggestions for both the verbiage reduction in the
> > > comments in the header, as the new code he is proposing is more
> > > self-documenting. I believe I proposed a big comment just because the code
> > > wasn't self-documenting or obvious previously so needed an explanation.
> > >
> > > How would you like to proceed? Let me know what you guys decide, I am really
> > > Ok with anything. If you guys agree, should I write a follow-up patch with
> > > Peter's suggestion that applies on top of this one? Or do we want to drop
> > > this one in favor of Peter's suggestion?
> >
> > Shortening the comment would be good, so please do that.
> >
> > I cannot say that I am much of a fan of the suggested change to the
> > computation, but I don't feel all that strongly about it. If the two
>
> Did you mean a code generation standpoint or from a higher level coding standpoint?
I mean from the viewpoint that this changes the source code from a
straightforward single-line computation that can be seen at a glance
into something using a macro with a "__" prefix that invokes yet another
macro that eventually does something.
And yes, once I looked up the macro definitions, I did see that it is
functionally equivalent to the original code. ;-)
> >From a code generation perspective, the code is identical, I did a quick
> test to confirm that:
>
> 0000000000000000 <rcu_seq_snap_old>:
> 0: e8 00 00 00 00 callq 5 <rcu_seq_snap_old+0x5>
> 5: 48 8b 07 mov (%rdi),%rax
> 8: f0 83 44 24 fc 00 lock addl $0x0,-0x4(%rsp)
> e: 48 83 c0 07 add $0x7,%rax
> 12: 48 83 e0 fc and $0xfffffffffffffffc,%rax
> 16: c3 retq
> 17: 66 0f 1f 84 00 00 00 nopw 0x0(%rax,%rax,1)
> 1e: 00 00
>
> 0000000000000020 <rcu_seq_snap_new>:
> 20: e8 00 00 00 00 callq 25 <rcu_seq_snap_new+0x5>
> 25: 48 8b 07 mov (%rdi),%rax
> 28: f0 83 44 24 fc 00 lock addl $0x0,-0x4(%rsp)
> 2e: 48 83 c0 07 add $0x7,%rax
> 32: 48 83 e0 fc and $0xfffffffffffffffc,%rax
> 36: c3 retq
> 37: 66 0f 1f 84 00 00 00 nopw 0x0(%rax,%rax,1)
> 3e: 00 00
That is reassuring.
Thanx, Paul
> > of you agree on a formulation and get at least one other RCU maintainer
> > or reviewer to agree as well, I will take the change.
> >
>
> Cool, sounds good.
>
> thanks!
>
> - Joel
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists