linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 5/5] psi: introduce psi monitor

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: <20190116191728.GA1380@cmpxchg.org>
Date:   Wed, 16 Jan 2019 14:17:28 -0500
From:   Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>
To:     Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@...gle.com>
Cc:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>, lizefan@...wei.com, axboe@...nel.dk,
        dennis@...nel.org, Dennis Zhou <dennisszhou@...il.com>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>, cgroups@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-mm <linux-mm@...ck.org>, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, kernel-team@...roid.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 5/5] psi: introduce psi monitor

On Wed, Jan 16, 2019 at 09:39:13AM -0800, Suren Baghdasaryan wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 16, 2019 at 5:24 AM Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Jan 14, 2019 at 11:30:12AM -0800, Suren Baghdasaryan wrote:
> > > For memory ordering (which Johannes also pointed out) the critical point is:
> > >
> > > times[cpu] += delta           | if g->polling:
> > > smp_wmb()                     |   g->polling = polling = 0
> > > cmpxchg(g->polling, 0, 1)     |   smp_rmb()
> > >                               |   delta = times[*] (through goto SLOWPATH)
> > >
> > > So that hotpath writes to times[] then g->polling and slowpath reads
> > > g->polling then times[]. cmpxchg() implies a full barrier, so we can
> > > drop smp_wmb(). Something like this:
> > >
> > > times[cpu] += delta           | if g->polling:
> > > cmpxchg(g->polling, 0, 1)     |   g->polling = polling = 0
> > >                               |   smp_rmb()
> > >                               |   delta = times[*] (through goto SLOWPATH)
> > >
> > > Would that address your concern about ordering?
> >
> > cmpxchg() implies smp_mb() before and after, so the smp_wmb() on the
> > left column is superfluous.
> 
> Should I keep it in the comments to make it obvious and add a note
> about implicit barriers being the reason we don't call smp_mb() in the
> code explicitly?

I'd keep 'em out if they aren't actually in the code. But I'd switch

	delta = times[*]

in this comment to to

	get_recent_times() // implies smp_mb()

or something to make the ordering a bit more visible.

And also add a comment to the actual cmpxchg() in the code directly
that says that we rely on the implied ordering and that it pairs with
the smp_mb() in the slowpath; add a similar comment to the smp_mb().

> > Also, you probably want to use atomic_t for g->polling, because we
> > (sadly) have architectures where regular stores and atomic ops don't
> > work 'right'.
> 
> Oh, I see. Will do. Thanks!

Yikes, that's news to me too. Good to know.