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:   Thu, 11 Apr 2019 11:55:02 -0400
From:   Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:     Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, x86@...nel.org,
        Davidlohr Bueso <dave@...olabs.net>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com>,
        huang ying <huang.ying.caritas@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH-tip v3 05/14] locking/rwsem: Remove rwsem_wake() wakeup
 optimization

On 04/11/2019 03:25 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 10, 2019 at 02:42:22PM -0400, Waiman Long wrote:
>> With the commit 59aabfc7e959 ("locking/rwsem: Reduce spinlock contention
>> in wakeup after up_read()/up_write()"), the rwsem_wake() forgoes doing
>> a wakeup if the wait_lock cannot be directly acquired and an optimistic
>> spinning locker is present.  This can help performance by avoiding
>> spinning on the wait_lock when it is contended.
>>
>> With the later commit 133e89ef5ef3 ("locking/rwsem: Enable lockless
>> waiter wakeup(s)"), the performance advantage of the above optimization
>> diminishes as the average wait_lock hold time become much shorter.
>>
>> By supporting rwsem lock handoff, we can no longer relies on the fact
>> that the presence of an optimistic spinning locker will ensure that the
>> lock will be acquired by a task soon. This can lead to missed wakeup
>> and application hang. So the commit 59aabfc7e959 ("locking/rwsem:
>> Reduce spinlock contention in wakeup after up_read()/up_write()")
>> will have to be reverted.
> Does it make sense to make this patch #3 in this series? The less code
> there is, the easier to review the other patches.

Yes, sure. I will move it up in the next version.

Cheers,
Longman

Powered by blists - more mailing lists