linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 3/4] locking/qspinlock: Add ARCH_USE_QUEUED_SPINLOCKS

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]

Date:   Wed, 7 Apr 2021 21:50:37 +0200
From:   Christoph Müllner <christophm30@...il.com>
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:     Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>, Guo Ren <guoren@...nel.org>,
        linux-riscv <linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-csky@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-arch <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>,
        Guo Ren <guoren@...ux.alibaba.com>,
        Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>, Anup Patel <anup@...infault.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 3/4] locking/qspinlock: Add ARCH_USE_QUEUED_SPINLOCKS_XCHG32

On Wed, Apr 7, 2021 at 6:00 PM Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Apr 07, 2021 at 04:29:12PM +0200, Christoph Müllner wrote:
> > RISC-V defines LR/SC loops consisting of up to 16 instructions as
> > constrained LR/SC loops.  Such constrained LR/SC loops provide the
> > required forward guarantees, that are expected (similar to what other
> > architectures, like AArch64, have).
>
> The text quoted by others didn't seem to say such a thing, but whatever.

The RISC-V unpriv spec is public can be found here:
https://riscv.org/technical/specifications/
Version 20191213 discusses LR/SC-loops in section 8.3 (page 51).
So in case you are interested in the exact wording, you can find it there.

> > What RISC-V does not have is sub-word atomics and if required, we
> > would have to implement them as LL/SC sequences. And yes, using atomic
> > instructions is preferred over using LL/SC,
>
> (psudo asm, can't be bothered to figure out the actual syntax)
>
>         # setup r_and_mask, r_or_mask
>
> .L1
>         LL r, [word]
>         AND r, r, r_and_mask
>         OR r, r, r_or_mask
>         SC r, [word]
>         JNE .L1

I fully agree with this.
I've implemented a patch for that two weeks ago using the following helper:

+/*
+ * Mask and set given bits at a given address atomically.
+ * The masked old value will be returned.
+ */
+static inline u32 atomic_mask_and_set(u32* p, u32 mask, u32 val)
+{
+       u32 ret, tmp;
+       __asm__ __volatile__ (
+               "0:     lr.w %0, %2\n"
+               "       and  %0, %0, %3\n"
+               "       or   %1, %0, %4\n"
+               "       sc.w %1, %1, %2\n"
+               "       bnez %1, 0b\n"
+               : "+&r"(ret), "=&r" (tmp), "+A"(*p)
+               : "r" (mask), "rJ"(val)
+               : "memory");
+       return ret;
+}

However, Guo pushed out a new patchset in between and I decided to not continue
my approach to not undermine his approach.

I will sync up with Guo to provide a common patchset.

Thanks,
Christoph

> is what you need for LL/SC based xchg16, that's less than 16
> instructions. If RISC-V guarantees fwd progress on that, good, write it
> like that and lets end this thread.
>
> The fact that this is apparently hard, is not good.