linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH next 2/5] locking/osq_lock: Avoid dirtying the local cpu's 'node' in the osq

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: <ZZRbtwwcusePltww@boqun-archlinux>
Date: Tue, 2 Jan 2024 10:53:43 -0800
From: Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>
To: David Laight <David.Laight@...lab.com>
Cc: 'Waiman Long' <longman@...hat.com>,
	"'linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org'" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"'peterz@...radead.org'" <peterz@...radead.org>,
	"'mingo@...hat.com'" <mingo@...hat.com>,
	"'will@...nel.org'" <will@...nel.org>,
	'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 2/5] locking/osq_lock: Avoid dirtying the local
 cpu's 'node' in the osq_lock() fast path.

On Sat, Dec 30, 2023 at 03:49:52PM +0000, David Laight wrote:
[...]
> I don't completely understand the 'acquire'/'release' semantics (they didn't
> exist when I started doing SMP kernel code in the late 1980s).
> But it looks odd that osq_unlock()'s fast path uses _release but the very
> similar code in osq_wait_next() uses _acquire.
> 

The _release in osq_unlock() is needed since unlocks are needed to be
RELEASE so that lock+unlock can be a critical section (i.e. no memory
accesses can escape). When osq_wait_next() is used in non unlock cases,
the RELEASE is not required. As for the case where osq_wait_next() is
used in osq_unlock(), there is a xchg() preceding it, which provides a
full barrier, so things are fine.

/me wonders whether we can relax the _acquire in osq_wait_next() into
a _relaxed.

> Indeed, apart from some (assumed) optimisations, I think osq_unlock()
> could just be:
> 	next = osq_wait_next(lock, this_cpu_ptr(&osq_node), 0);
> 	if (next)
> 		next->locked = 1;
> 

If so we need to provide some sort of RELEASE semantics for the
osq_unlock() in all the cases.

Regards,
Boqun

> I don't think the order of the tests for lock->tail and node->next
> matter in osq_wait_next().
> If they were swapped the 'Second most likely case' code from osq_unlock()
> could be removed.
> (The 'uncontended case' doesn't need to load the address of 'node'.)
> 
> 	David
> 		
> 
> -
> Registered Address Lakeside, Bramley Road, Mount Farm, Milton Keynes, MK1 1PT, UK
> Registration No: 1397386 (Wales)