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

Date:   Tue, 14 Dec 2021 15:40:57 +0000
From:   Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:     Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
        Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org,
        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 03:05:15PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> 
> There's currently a number of architectures that want/have graduated
> from test-and-set locks and are looking at qspinlock.
> 
> *HOWEVER* qspinlock is very complicated and requires a lot of an
> architecture to actually work correctly. Specifically it requires
> forward progress between a fair number of atomic primitives, including
> an xchg16 operation, which I've seen a fair number of fundamentally
> broken implementations of in the tree (specifically for qspinlock no
> less).
> 
> The benefit of qspinlock over ticket lock is also non-obvious, esp.
> at low contention (the vast majority of cases in the kernel), and it
> takes a fairly large number of CPUs (typically also NUMA) to make
> qspinlock beat ticket locks.
> 
> Esp. things like ARM64's WFE can move the balance a lot in favour of
> simpler locks by reducing the cacheline pressure due to waiters (see
> their smp_cond_load_acquire() implementation for details).
> 
> Unless you've audited qspinlock for your architecture and found it
> sound *and* can show actual benefit, simpler is better.
> 
> Therefore provide ticket locks, which depend on a single atomic
> operation (fetch_add) while still providing fairness.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@...radead.org>
> ---
>  include/asm-generic/qspinlock.h         |   30 +++++++++
>  include/asm-generic/ticket_lock_types.h |   11 +++
>  include/asm-generic/ticket_lock.h       |   97 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>  3 files changed, 138 insertions(+)

Huh. I looked quite closely at this a while back but seems like I forgot to
actually reply here. So, given that it doesn't seem to be in linux-next yet:

Acked-by: Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>

Will