linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH] Add split

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <87y2dr4lrc.ffs@nanos.tec.linutronix.de>
Date:   Fri, 09 Apr 2021 15:42:47 +0200
From:   Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        "Matthew Wilcox \(Oracle\)" <willy@...radead.org>
Cc:     Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
        Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>,
        Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] Add split_lock

On Thu, Apr 08 2021 at 12:18, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 08, 2021 at 06:23:38AM +0100, Matthew Wilcox (Oracle) wrote:
>> bit_spinlocks are horrible on RT because there's absolutely nowhere
>> to put the mutex to sleep on.  They also do not participate in lockdep
>> because there's nowhere to put the map.
>> 
>> Most (all?) bit spinlocks are actually a split lock; logically they
>> could be treated as a single spinlock, but for performance, we want to
>> split the lock over many objects.  Introduce the split_lock as somewhere
>> to store the lockdep map and as somewhere that the RT kernel can put
>> a mutex.  It may also let us store a ticket lock for better performance
>> on non-RT kernels in the future, but I have left the current cpu_relax()
>> implementation intact for now.
>
> I think I like it, but I'm not sure it'll work for RT as is. It's a bit
> like qrwlock in that it only uses the internal (split) lock for
> contention, but that doesn't work for PI.
>
> I've not recently looked at RT, but I think they simply used to bloat a
> number of the data structures with a real lock. Sebastian and Thomas
> will know better.

Correct, but it depends on the nature of the bit spinlock and the lock
held times. Some of them we just keep as is as it's not worth the
trouble.

Thanks,

        tglx