linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 11/16] locking/rwsem: Enable readers spinning on writer

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: <8683197e-4eec-b89b-df44-3b61088944af@redhat.com>
Date:   Wed, 17 Apr 2019 13:45:10 -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 v4 11/16] locking/rwsem: Enable readers spinning on writer

On 04/17/2019 09:58 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 13, 2019 at 01:22:54PM -0400, Waiman Long wrote:
>> +/*
>> + * Try to acquire read lock before the reader is put on wait queue.
>> + * Lock acquisition isn't allowed if the rwsem is locked or a writer handoff
>> + * is ongoing.
>> + */
>> +static inline bool rwsem_try_read_lock_unqueued(struct rw_semaphore *sem)
>> +{
>> +	long count = atomic_long_read(&sem->count);
>> +
>> +	if (RWSEM_COUNT_WLOCKED_OR_HANDOFF(count))
>> +		return false;
>> +
>> +	count = atomic_long_fetch_add_acquire(RWSEM_READER_BIAS, &sem->count);
>> +	if (!RWSEM_COUNT_WLOCKED_OR_HANDOFF(count)) {
>> +		rwsem_set_reader_owned(sem);
>> +		lockevent_inc(rwsem_opt_rlock);
>> +		return true;
>> +	}
>> +
>> +	/* Back out the change */
>> +	atomic_long_add(-RWSEM_READER_BIAS, &sem->count);
>> +	return false;
>> +}
> Doesn't a cmpxchg 'loop' make more sense here?

Not really. A cmpxchg loop will have one more correctible failure mode -
a new reader acquire the lock or a reader owner does an unlock. Failures
caused by the setting of the handoff bit or writer acquiring the lock
are the same for both cases. I don't see any advantage in using cmpxchg
loop.

Cheers,
Longman