linux-kernel - RE: [PATCH next 5/5] locking/osq_lock: Optimise vcpu_is

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: <d5b2f1ed1fa3473fb8b73a0836f9b3b1@AcuMS.aculab.com>
Date: Sat, 30 Dec 2023 22:37:49 +0000
From: David Laight <David.Laight@...LAB.COM>
To: 'Waiman Long' <longman@...hat.com>, "'linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org'"
	<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, "'peterz@...radead.org'"
	<peterz@...radead.org>
CC: "'mingo@...hat.com'" <mingo@...hat.com>, "'will@...nel.org'"
	<will@...nel.org>, "'boqun.feng@...il.com'" <boqun.feng@...il.com>, "'Linus
 Torvalds'" <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>, "'xinhui.pan@...ux.vnet.ibm.com'"
	<xinhui.pan@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	"'virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org'"
	<virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org>, 'Zeng Heng'
	<zengheng4@...wei.com>
Subject: RE: [PATCH next 5/5] locking/osq_lock: Optimise vcpu_is_preempted()
 check.

From: Waiman Long
> Sent: 30 December 2023 15:57
> 
> On 12/29/23 22:13, Waiman Long wrote:
> >
> > On 12/29/23 15:58, David Laight wrote:
> >> The vcpu_is_preempted() test stops osq_lock() spinning if a virtual
> >>    cpu is no longer running.
> >> Although patched out for bare-metal the code still needs the cpu number.
> >> Reading this from 'prev->cpu' is a pretty much guaranteed have a
> >> cache miss
> >> when osq_unlock() is waking up the next cpu.
> >>
> >> Instead save 'prev->cpu' in 'node->prev_cpu' and use that value instead.
> >> Update in the osq_lock() 'unqueue' path when 'node->prev' is changed.
> >>
> >> This is simpler than checking for 'node->prev' changing and caching
> >> 'prev->cpu'.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: David Laight <david.laight@...lab.com>
> >> ---
> >>   kernel/locking/osq_lock.c | 14 ++++++--------
> >>   1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/kernel/locking/osq_lock.c b/kernel/locking/osq_lock.c
> >> index b60b0add0161..89be63627434 100644
> >> --- a/kernel/locking/osq_lock.c
> >> +++ b/kernel/locking/osq_lock.c
> >> @@ -14,8 +14,9 @@
> >>     struct optimistic_spin_node {
> >>       struct optimistic_spin_node *self, *next, *prev;
> >> -    int locked; /* 1 if lock acquired */
> >> -    int cpu; /* encoded CPU # + 1 value */
> >> +    int locked;    /* 1 if lock acquired */
> >> +    int cpu;       /* encoded CPU # + 1 value */
> >> +    int prev_cpu;  /* actual CPU # for vpcu_is_preempted() */
> >>   };
> >>     static DEFINE_PER_CPU_SHARED_ALIGNED(struct optimistic_spin_node,
> >> osq_node);
> >> @@ -29,11 +30,6 @@ static inline int encode_cpu(int cpu_nr)
> >>       return cpu_nr + 1;
> >>   }
> >>   -static inline int node_cpu(struct optimistic_spin_node *node)
> >> -{
> >> -    return node->cpu - 1;
> >> -}
> >> -
> >>   static inline struct optimistic_spin_node *decode_cpu(int
> >> encoded_cpu_val)
> >>   {
> >>       int cpu_nr = encoded_cpu_val - 1;
> >> @@ -114,6 +110,7 @@ bool osq_lock(struct optimistic_spin_queue *lock)
> >>       if (old == OSQ_UNLOCKED_VAL)
> >>           return true;
> >>   +    node->prev_cpu = old - 1;
> >>       prev = decode_cpu(old);
> >>       node->prev = prev;
> >>       node->locked = 0;
> >> @@ -148,7 +145,7 @@ bool osq_lock(struct optimistic_spin_queue *lock)
> >>        * polling, be careful.
> >>        */
> >>       if (smp_cond_load_relaxed(&node->locked, VAL || need_resched() ||
> >> -                  vcpu_is_preempted(node_cpu(node->prev))))
> >> +                  vcpu_is_preempted(node->prev_cpu)))
> 
> On second thought, I believe it is more correct to use READ_ONCE() to
> access "node->prev_cpu" as this field is subjected to change by a
> WRITE_ONCE().

It can be done...

Aren't pretty much all the 'node' members accessed like that?
There are a sprinkling of READ_ONCE() and WRITE_ONCE() but they
are not always used.

Maybe the structure member(s) should just be marked 'volatile' :-)
That should have exactly the same effect as the volatile cast
inside READ/WRITE_ONCE().
(I know there is a document about not using volatile...)

I've not actually checked whether the two existing WRITE_ONCE()
in 'Step C' need to be ordered - and whether that is guaranteed
by the code, especially on out good old friend 'Alpha' (is that
horrid cache system still supported?).

	David

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