linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] riscv: locks: introduce ticket-based spinlock implementation

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: <YHVTgfCpxpINc8sM@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date:   Tue, 13 Apr 2021 10:17:05 +0200
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:     Christoph Müllner <christophm30@...il.com>
Cc:     Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@...belt.com>,
        Anup Patel <anup@...infault.org>, Guo Ren <guoren@...nel.org>,
        linux-riscv <linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Guo Ren <guoren@...ux.alibaba.com>, catalin.marinas@....com,
        will.deacon@....com, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] riscv: locks: introduce ticket-based spinlock
 implementation

On Tue, Apr 13, 2021 at 10:03:01AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:

> For ticket locks you really only needs atomic_fetch_add() and
> smp_store_release() and an architectural guarantees that the
> atomic_fetch_add() has fwd progress under contention and that a sub-word
> store (through smp_store_release()) will fail the SC.
> 
> Then you can do something like:
> 
> void lock(atomic_t *lock)
> {
> 	u32 val = atomic_fetch_add(1<<16, lock); /* SC, gives us RCsc */
> 	u16 ticket = val >> 16;
> 
> 	for (;;) {
> 		if (ticket == (u16)val)
> 			break;
> 		cpu_relax();
> 		val = atomic_read_acquire(lock);
> 	}

A possibly better might be:

	if (ticket == (u16)val)
		return;

	atomic_cond_read_acquire(lock, ticket == (u16)VAL);

Since that allows architectures to use WFE like constructs.

> }
> 
> void unlock(atomic_t *lock)
> {
> 	u16 *ptr = (u16 *)lock + (!!__BIG_ENDIAN__);
> 	u32 val = atomic_read(lock);
> 
> 	smp_store_release(ptr, (u16)val + 1);
> }
> 
> That's _almost_ as simple as a test-and-set :-) It isn't quite optimal
> on x86 for not being allowed to use a memop on unlock, since its being
> forced into a load-store because of all the volatile, but whatever.