linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH] bit_spinlock: introduce smp_cond_load

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]

Date:   Sat, 13 Oct 2018 15:22:08 +0800
From:   Gao Xiang <hsiangkao@....com>
To:     Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Cc:     Philippe Ombredanne <pombredanne@...b.com>,
        Kate Stewart <kstewart@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Miao Xie <miaoxie@...wei.com>,
        Chao Yu <chao@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] bit_spinlock: introduce smp_cond_load_relaxed

Hi Greg,

On 2018/10/13 15:04, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 13, 2018 at 02:47:29PM +0800, Gao Xiang wrote:
>> It is better to use smp_cond_load_relaxed instead
>> of busy waiting for bit_spinlock.
> 
> Why?  I think we need some kind of "proof" that this is true before
> being able to accept a patch like this, don't you agree?

There are some materials which discuss smp_cond_load_* earlier.
https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/10335991/
https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/10325057/

In ARM64, they implements a function called "cmpwait", which uses
hardware instructions to monitor a value change, I think it is more
energy efficient than just do a open-code busy loop...

And it seem smp_cond_load_* is already used in the current kernel, such as:
./kernel/locking/mcs_spinlock.h
./kernel/locking/qspinlock.c
./kernel/sched/core.c
./kernel/smp.c

For other architectures like x86/arm64, I think they could implement
smp_cond_load_* later.

Thanks,
Gao Xiang

> 
> thanks,
> 
> greg k-h
>