linux-kernel - Re: Unfair qspinlocks on ARM64 without LSE atomics => 3ms delay in interrupt handling

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: <19641ab0-ab6a-9af7-8c64-34030e187848@siemens.com>
Date:   Thu, 27 Apr 2023 15:14:47 +0200
From:   Jan Kiszka <jan.kiszka@...mens.com>
To:     Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        "Bouska, Zdenek" <zdenek.bouska@...mens.com>,
        Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
        Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>
Cc:     "linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org" 
        <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-rt-users@...r.kernel.org" <linux-rt-users@...r.kernel.org>,
        Nishanth Menon <nm@...com>, Puranjay Mohan <p-mohan@...com>
Subject: Re: Unfair qspinlocks on ARM64 without LSE atomics => 3ms delay in
 interrupt handling

On 26.04.23 23:29, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 26 2023 at 12:03, Zdenek Bouska wrote:
>> following patch is my current approach for fixing this issue. I introduced
>> big_cpu_relax(), which uses Will's implementation [1] on ARM64 without
>> LSE atomics and original cpu_relax() on any other CPU.
> 
> Why is this interrupt handling specific? Just because it's the place
> where you observed it?
> 
> That's a general issue for any code which uses atomics for forward
> progress. LL/SC simply does not guarantee that.
> 
> So if that helps, then this needs to be addressed globaly and not with
> some crude hack in the interrupt handling code.

My impression is that the retry loop of irq_finalize_oneshot is
particularly susceptible to that issue due to the high acquire/relax
pressure and inter-dependency between holder and waiter it generates -
which does not mean it cannot occur in other places.

Are we aware of other concrete case where it bites? Even with just
"normal" contented spin_lock usage?

> 
>> Anyone has a better idea how to solve this issue properly?
> 
> Use hardware with LSE atomics :)

That would generate tons of waste of current electronic devices without
it - not very fashionable anymore. ;)

Jan

-- 
Siemens AG, Technology
Competence Center Embedded Linux