linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 1/4] locking/qspinlock: Handle

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <0229798a-f5c8-4c90-3ae6-f25a969989a3@redhat.com>
Date:   Wed, 23 Jan 2019 17:36:22 -0500
From:   Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:     Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-arch@...r.kernel.org, x86@...nel.org,
        Zhenzhong Duan <zhenzhong.duan@...cle.com>,
        James Morse <james.morse@....com>,
        SRINIVAS <srinivas.eeda@...cle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/4] locking/qspinlock: Handle > 4 slowpath nesting
 levels

On 01/23/2019 03:40 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 23, 2019 at 03:11:19PM -0500, Waiman Long wrote:
>> On 01/23/2019 04:34 AM, Will Deacon wrote:
>>> On Tue, Jan 22, 2019 at 10:49:08PM -0500, Waiman Long wrote:
>>>> @@ -412,6 +412,21 @@ void queued_spin_lock_slowpath(struct qspinlock *lock, u32 val)
>>>>  	idx = node->count++;
>>>>  	tail = encode_tail(smp_processor_id(), idx);
>>>> +	if (unlikely(idx >= MAX_NODES)) {
>>>> +		while (!queued_spin_trylock(lock))
>>>> +			cpu_relax();
>>>> +		goto release;
>>>> +	}
>> So the additional code checks the idx value and branch to the end of the
>> function when the condition is true. There isn't too much overhead here.
> So something horrible we could do (and I'm not at all advocating we do
> this), is invert node->count. That is, start at 3 and decrement and
> detect sign flips.
>
> That avoids the additional compare. It would require we change the
> structure layout though, otherwise we keep hitting that second line by
> default, which would suck.

The cost of the additional compare will not be noticeable if the branch
prediction logic is working properly. Inverting the loop logic, however,
will be a much bigger change and it may not guarantee it will be faster
anyway. So I don't think we should down go this route :-)

Cheers,
Longman