linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 rcu 04/18] rcu: Weaken ->dynticks accesses and updates

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:   Wed, 28 Jul 2021 11:57:14 -0700
From:   Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To:     "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>
Cc:     rcu <rcu@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Kernel Team <kernel-team@...com>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
        Lai Jiangshan <jiangshanlai@...il.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>,
        Josh Triplett <josh@...htriplett.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
        David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
        Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
        Frédéric Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
        Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
        Joel Fernandes <joel@...lfernandes.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 rcu 04/18] rcu: Weaken ->dynticks accesses and updates

On Wed, Jul 28, 2021 at 11:46 AM Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@...nel.org> wrote:
>
> But atomic_read_this_cpu(&rcu_data.dynticks) isn't all that much shorter
> than atomic_read(this_cpu_ptr(&rcu_data.dynticks)).

It's not so much that it's shorter to write for a human, it's that we
could generate better code for it.

That atomic_read(this_cpu_ptr()) pattern generates code like

        movq    $rcu_data+288, %rax
        add %gs:this_cpu_off(%rip), %rax
        movl    (%rax), %eax

but it *could* just generate

        movl %gs:rcu_data+288, %rax

instead.

Similar patterns for the other per-cpu atomics, ie it would be
possible to just generate

        lock ; xaddl %gs:..., %rax

instead of generating the address by doing that "add %gs:this_cpu_off" thing..

But no, it doesn't look like there are enough users of this to matter.
We're just talking a few extra bytes, and a couple of extra
instructions (and possibly slightly higher register pressure, which
then generates more instructions).

The *expensive* part remains the SMP serialization of the "lock".

                Linus