linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] locking/rwsem: Optimize down_read

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] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Wed, 13 Feb 2019 08:45:44 +0100
From:   Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
To:     Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>
Cc:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Linux List Kernel Mailing <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-alpha@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
        linux-hexagon@...r.kernel.org, linux-ia64@...r.kernel.org,
        linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org,
        Linux-sh list <linux-sh@...r.kernel.org>,
        sparclinux@...r.kernel.org, linux-xtensa@...ux-xtensa.org,
        linux-arch <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>,
        the arch/x86 maintainers <x86@...nel.org>,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
        Davidlohr Bueso <dave@...olabs.net>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] locking/rwsem: Optimize down_read_trylock()


* Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com> wrote:

> I looked at the assembly code in arch/x86/include/asm/rwsem.h. For both
> trylocks (read & write), the count is read first before attempting to
> lock it. We did the same for all trylock functions in other locks.
> Depending on how the trylock is used and how contended the lock is, it
> may help or hurt performance. Changing down_read_trylock to do an
> unconditional cmpxchg will change the performance profile of existing
> code. So I would prefer keeping the current code.
> 
> I do notice now that the generic down_write_trylock() code is doing an
> unconditional compxchg. So I wonder if we should change it to read the
> lock first like other trylocks or just leave it as it is.

No, I think we should instead move the other trylocks to the 
try-for-ownership model as well, like Linus suggested.

That's the general assumption we make in locking primitives, that we 
optimize for the common, expected case - which would be that the trylock 
succeeds, and I don't see why trylock primitives should be different.

In fact I can see more ways for read-for-sharing to perform suboptimally 
on larger systems.

Thanks,

	Ingo