linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] locking: Generic ticket lock

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: <YXGD5OFbI7TEDFTr@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date:   Thu, 21 Oct 2021 17:14:44 +0200
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:     Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
Cc:     Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>, Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
        Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>,
        linux-arch <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Guo Ren <guoren@...nel.org>,
        Palmer Dabbelt <palmerdabbelt@...gle.com>,
        Anup Patel <anup@...infault.org>,
        linux-riscv <linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org>,
        Christoph Müllner <christophm30@...il.com>,
        Stafford Horne <shorne@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] locking: Generic ticket lock

On Thu, Oct 21, 2021 at 03:49:51PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 21, 2021 at 3:05 PM Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
> >
> > Therefore provide ticket locks, which depend on a single atomic
> > operation (fetch_add) while still providing fairness.
> 
> Nice!
> 
> Aside from the qspinlock vs ticket-lock question, can you describe the
> tradeoffs between this generic ticket lock and a custom implementation
> in architecture code? Should we convert most architectures over
> to the generic code in the long run, or is there something they
> can usually do better with an inline asm based ticket lock

I think for a load-store arch this thing should generate pretty close to
optimal code. x86 can do ticket_unlock() slightly better using a single
INCW (or ADDW 1) on the owner subword, where this implementation will to
separate load-add-store instructions.

If that is actually measurable is something else entirely.

> or a trivial test-and-set?

If your SMP arch is halfway sane (no fwd progress issues etc..) then
ticket should behave well and avoid the starvation/variablilty of TaS
lock.

The big exception there is virtualized architectures, ticket is
absolutely horrendous for 'guests' (any fair lock is for that matter).