linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH next v2 5/5] locking/osq_lock: Optimise decode_cpu() and per_cpu

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: <16557e30-8353-4cd1-995b-23ec763d2b07@redhat.com>
Date: Fri, 3 May 2024 11:59:44 -0400
From: Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>
To: David Laight <David.Laight@...LAB.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>,
 "'virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org'"
 <virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org>,
 'Zeng Heng' <zengheng4@...wei.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH next v2 5/5] locking/osq_lock: Optimise decode_cpu() and
 per_cpu_ptr().


On 12/31/23 23:14, Waiman Long wrote:
>
> On 12/31/23 16:55, David Laight wrote:
>> per_cpu_ptr() indexes __per_cpu_offset[] with the cpu number.
>> This requires the cpu number be 64bit.
>> However the value is osq_lock() comes from a 32bit xchg() and there
>> isn't a way of telling gcc the high bits are zero (they are) so
>> there will always be an instruction to clear the high bits.
>>
>> The cpu number is also offset by one (to make the initialiser 0)
>> It seems to be impossible to get gcc to convert 
>> __per_cpu_offset[cpu_p1 - 1]
>> into (__per_cpu_offset - 1)[cpu_p1] (transferring the offset to the 
>> address).
>>
>> Converting the cpu number to 32bit unsigned prior to the decrement means
>> that gcc knows the decrement has set the high bits to zero and doesn't
>> add a register-register move (or cltq) to zero/sign extend the value.
>>
>> Not massive but saves two instructions.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: David Laight <david.laight@...lab.com>
>> ---
>>   kernel/locking/osq_lock.c | 6 ++----
>>   1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/kernel/locking/osq_lock.c b/kernel/locking/osq_lock.c
>> index 35bb99e96697..37a4fa872989 100644
>> --- a/kernel/locking/osq_lock.c
>> +++ b/kernel/locking/osq_lock.c
>> @@ -29,11 +29,9 @@ static inline int encode_cpu(int cpu_nr)
>>       return cpu_nr + 1;
>>   }
>>   -static inline struct optimistic_spin_node *decode_cpu(int 
>> encoded_cpu_val)
>> +static inline struct optimistic_spin_node *decode_cpu(unsigned int 
>> encoded_cpu_val)
>>   {
>> -    int cpu_nr = encoded_cpu_val - 1;
>> -
>> -    return per_cpu_ptr(&osq_node, cpu_nr);
>> +    return per_cpu_ptr(&osq_node, encoded_cpu_val - 1);
>>   }
>>     /*
>
> You really like micro-optimization.
>
> Anyway,
>
> Reviewed-by: Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>
>
David,

Could you respin the series based on the latest upstream code?

Thanks,
Longman