linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 02/11] this_cpu_cmpxchg: ARM64: switch this_cpu_cmpxchg to locked, add

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: <a754561a-1d0a-ebfb-952f-054bae6dc533@redhat.com>
Date:   Thu, 2 Mar 2023 11:42:57 +0100
From:   David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
To:     Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@...hat.com>,
        Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>
Cc:     Aaron Tomlin <atomlin@...mlin.com>,
        Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@...nel.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 02/11] this_cpu_cmpxchg: ARM64: switch this_cpu_cmpxchg
 to locked, add _local function

On 09.02.23 16:01, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
> Goal is to have vmstat_shepherd to transfer from
> per-CPU counters to global counters remotely. For this,
> an atomic this_cpu_cmpxchg is necessary.
> 
> Following the kernel convention for cmpxchg/cmpxchg_local,
> change ARM's this_cpu_cmpxchg_ helpers to be atomic,
> and add this_cpu_cmpxchg_local_ helpers which are not atomic.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@...hat.com>
> 
> Index: linux-vmstat-remote/arch/arm64/include/asm/percpu.h
> ===================================================================
> --- linux-vmstat-remote.orig/arch/arm64/include/asm/percpu.h
> +++ linux-vmstat-remote/arch/arm64/include/asm/percpu.h
> @@ -232,13 +232,23 @@ PERCPU_RET_OP(add, add, ldadd)
>   	_pcp_protect_return(xchg_relaxed, pcp, val)
>   
>   #define this_cpu_cmpxchg_1(pcp, o, n)	\
> -	_pcp_protect_return(cmpxchg_relaxed, pcp, o, n)
> +	_pcp_protect_return(cmpxchg, pcp, o, n)
>   #define this_cpu_cmpxchg_2(pcp, o, n)	\
> -	_pcp_protect_return(cmpxchg_relaxed, pcp, o, n)
> +	_pcp_protect_return(cmpxchg, pcp, o, n)
>   #define this_cpu_cmpxchg_4(pcp, o, n)	\
> -	_pcp_protect_return(cmpxchg_relaxed, pcp, o, n)
> +	_pcp_protect_return(cmpxchg, pcp, o, n)
>   #define this_cpu_cmpxchg_8(pcp, o, n)	\
> +	_pcp_protect_return(cmpxchg, pcp, o, n)
> +
> +#define this_cpu_cmpxchg_local_1(pcp, o, n)	\
>   	_pcp_protect_return(cmpxchg_relaxed, pcp, o, n)
> +#define this_cpu_cmpxchg_local_2(pcp, o, n)	\
> +	_pcp_protect_return(cmpxchg_relaxed, pcp, o, n)
> +#define this_cpu_cmpxchg_local_4(pcp, o, n)	\
> +	_pcp_protect_return(cmpxchg_relaxed, pcp, o, n)
> +#define this_cpu_cmpxchg_local_8(pcp, o, n)	\
> +	_pcp_protect_return(cmpxchg_relaxed, pcp, o, n)
> +

Call me confused (not necessarily your fault :) ).

We have cmpxchg_local, cmpxchg_relaxed and cmpxchg. 
this_cpu_cmpxchg_local_* now calls ... *drumroll* ... cmpxchg_relaxed.

IIUC, cmpxchg_local is only guaranteed to be atomic WRO the current CPU 
(especially, protection against interrupts when the operation is 
implemented using multiple instructions). We do have a generic 
implementation that disables/enables interrupts.

IIUC, cmpxchg_relaxed an atomic update without any memory ordering 
guarantees (in contrast to cmpxchg, cmpxchg_acquire, cmpxchg_acquire). 
We default to arch_cmpxchg if we don't have arch_cmpxchg_relaxed. 
arch_cmpxchg defaults to arch_cmpxchg_local, if not supported.


Naturally I wonder:

(a) Should these new variants be rather called
     this_cpu_cmpxchg_relaxed_* ?

(b) Should these new variants rather call the "_local" variant?


Shedding some light on this would be great.

-- 
Thanks,

David / dhildenb