linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] MIPS: Change definition of cpu

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: <tencent_49EB501232FD02AC001F9E93@qq.com>
Date:   Sat, 21 Jul 2018 09:35:59 +0800
From:   "陈华才" <chenhc@...ote.com>
To:     "Paul Burton" <paul.burton@...s.com>
Cc:     "Ralf Baechle" <ralf@...ux-mips.org>,
        "James Hogan" <jhogan@...nel.org>,
        "linux-mips" <linux-mips@...ux-mips.org>,
        "Fuxin Zhang" <zhangfx@...ote.com>,
        "wuzhangjin" <wuzhangjin@...il.com>,
        "stable" <stable@...r.kernel.org>,
        "Alan Stern" <stern@...land.harvard.edu>,
        "Andrea Parri" <andrea.parri@...rulasolutions.com>,
        "Will Deacon" <will.deacon@....com>,
        "Peter Zijlstra" <peterz@...radead.org>,
        "Boqun Feng" <boqun.feng@...il.com>,
        "Nicholas Piggin" <npiggin@...il.com>,
        "David Howells" <dhowells@...hat.com>,
        "Jade Alglave" <j.alglave@....ac.uk>,
        "Luc Maranget" <luc.maranget@...ia.fr>,
        "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        "Akira Yokosawa" <akiyks@...il.com>,
        "LKML" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] MIPS: Change definition of cpu_relax() for Loongson-3

Hi, Paul,
 
SFB can improve the memory bandwidth as much as 30%, and we are planning to enable SFB by default. So, we want to control cpu_relax() under CONFIG_CPU_LOONGSON3, not under CONFIG_LOONGSON3_ENHANCEMENT.

Huacai
 
------------------ Original ------------------
From:  "Paul Burton"<paul.burton@...s.com>;
Date:  Fri, Jul 20, 2018 05:15 AM
To:  "Huacai Chen"<chenhc@...ote.com>; 
Cc:  "Ralf Baechle"<ralf@...ux-mips.org>; "James Hogan"<jhogan@...nel.org>; "linux-mips"<linux-mips@...ux-mips.org>; "Fuxin Zhang"<zhangfx@...ote.com>; "wuzhangjin"<wuzhangjin@...il.com>; "stable"<stable@...r.kernel.org>; "Alan Stern"<stern@...land.harvard.edu>; "Andrea Parri"<andrea.parri@...rulasolutions.com>; "Will Deacon"<will.deacon@....com>; "Peter Zijlstra"<peterz@...radead.org>; "Boqun Feng"<boqun.feng@...il.com>; "Nicholas Piggin"<npiggin@...il.com>; "David Howells"<dhowells@...hat.com>; "Jade Alglave"<j.alglave@....ac.uk>; "Luc Maranget"<luc.maranget@...ia.fr>; "Paul E. McKenney"<paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>; "Akira Yokosawa"<akiyks@...il.com>; "LKML"<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>; 
Subject:  Re: [PATCH] MIPS: Change definition of cpu_relax() for Loongson-3

 
Hi Huacai,

On Wed, Jul 18, 2018 at 09:15:46AM +0800, Huacai Chen wrote:
> >> diff --git a/arch/mips/include/asm/processor.h b/arch/mips/include/asm/processor.h
> >> index af34afb..a8c4a3a 100644
> >> --- a/arch/mips/include/asm/processor.h
> >> +++ b/arch/mips/include/asm/processor.h
> >> @@ -386,7 +386,17 @@ unsigned long get_wchan(struct task_struct *p);
> >>  #define KSTK_ESP(tsk) (task_pt_regs(tsk)->regs[29])
> >>  #define KSTK_STATUS(tsk) (task_pt_regs(tsk)->cp0_status)
> >>
> >> +#ifdef CONFIG_CPU_LOONGSON3
> >> +/*
> >> + * Loongson-3's SFB (Store-Fill-Buffer) may get starved when stuck in a read
> >> + * loop. Since spin loops of any kind should have a cpu_relax() in them, force
> >> + * a Store-Fill-Buffer flush from cpu_relax() such that any pending writes will
> >> + * become available as expected.
> >> + */
> >
> > I think "may starve writes" or "may queue writes indefinitely" would be
> > clearer than "may get starved".
>
> Need I change the comment and resend? Or you change the comment and get merged?

I'm happy to fix up the comment - but have a couple more questions.

Looking into the history, would it be fair to say that this is only a
problem after commit 1e820da3c9af ("MIPS: Loongson-3: Introduce
CONFIG_LOONGSON3_ENHANCEMENT") when CONFIG_LOONGSON3_ENHANCEMENT=y,
which adds code to enable the SFB?

If so would it make sense to use CONFIG_LOONGSON3_ENHANCEMENT to select
the use of smp_mb()?

How much does performance gain does enabling the SFB give you? Would it
be reasonable to just disable it, rather than using this workaround?

Thanks,
    Paul