linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 6/8] lazy tlb: shoot lazies, a non-refcounting lazy tlb option

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:   Mon, 30 Nov 2020 10:34:17 +0100
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:     Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>
Cc:     Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@...il.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>,
        Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
        linux-arch <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>,
        linuxppc-dev <linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org>,
        Linux-MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>, Anton Blanchard <anton@...abs.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 6/8] lazy tlb: shoot lazies, a non-refcounting lazy tlb
 option

On Mon, Nov 30, 2020 at 10:30:00AM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 28, 2020 at 07:54:57PM -0800, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> > This means that mm_cpumask operations won't need to be full barriers
> > forever, and we might not want to take the implied full barriers in
> > set_bit() and clear_bit() for granted.
> 
> There is no implied full barrier for those ops.

Neither ARM nor Power implies any ordering on those ops. But Power has
some of the worst atomic performance in the world despite of that.

IIRC they don't do their LL/SC in L1.