linux-kernel - RE: [PATCH] lib/genalloc: use try_cmpxchg in {set,clear}_bits

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: <913c01d41f824fa8b3400384437fa0d8@AcuMS.aculab.com>
Date:   Thu, 19 Jan 2023 12:47:31 +0000
From:   David Laight <David.Laight@...LAB.COM>
To:     'Uros Bizjak' <ubizjak@...il.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
CC:     "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: RE: [PATCH] lib/genalloc: use try_cmpxchg in {set,clear}_bits_ll

> BTW: Recently, it was determined [1] that the usage of cpu_relax()
> inside the cmpxchg loop can be harmful for performance. We actually
> have the same situation here, so perhaps cpu_relax() should be removed
> in the same way it was removed from the lockref.

I'm not sure you can ever want a cpu_relax() in a loop that
is implementing an atomic operation.
Even the ia64 (die...) issue was with a loop that was waiting
for another cpu to change the location (eg a spinlock).

For an atomic operation an immediate retry is likely to succeed.
Any kind of deferral to an another cpu can only make it worse.

Clearly if you have 100s of cpu looping doing atomic operation
on the same cache line it is likely that some get starved.
But to fix that you need to increase the time between successful
operations, not delay on failure.

	David

-
Registered Address Lakeside, Bramley Road, Mount Farm, Milton Keynes, MK1 1PT, UK
Registration No: 1397386 (Wales)