| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <20240815-17cff9794dd6fb3440478622@orel>
Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2024 15:34:16 +0200
From: Andrew Jones <ajones@...tanamicro.com>
To: Alexandre Ghiti <alex@...ti.fr>
Cc: Alexandre Ghiti <alexghiti@...osinc.com>,
Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>, Paul Walmsley <paul.walmsley@...ive.com>,
Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@...belt.com>, Albert Ou <aou@...s.berkeley.edu>,
Conor Dooley <conor@...nel.org>, Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>,
Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk+dt@...nel.org>, Andrea Parri <parri.andrea@...il.com>,
Nathan Chancellor <nathan@...nel.org>, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>, Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>,
Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
Leonardo Bras <leobras@...hat.com>, Guo Ren <guoren@...nel.org>, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org,
linux-arch@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 13/13] riscv: Add qspinlock support
On Thu, Aug 15, 2024 at 03:27:31PM GMT, Alexandre Ghiti wrote:
> Hi Andrew,
>
> On 01/08/2024 08:53, Alexandre Ghiti wrote:
> > On Wed, Jul 31, 2024 at 5:29 PM Andrew Jones <ajones@...tanamicro.com> wrote:
> > > On Wed, Jul 31, 2024 at 09:24:05AM GMT, Alexandre Ghiti wrote:
> > > > In order to produce a generic kernel, a user can select
> > > > CONFIG_COMBO_SPINLOCKS which will fallback at runtime to the ticket
> > > > spinlock implementation if Zabha or Ziccrse are not present.
> > > >
> > > > Note that we can't use alternatives here because the discovery of
> > > > extensions is done too late and we need to start with the qspinlock
> > > > implementation because the ticket spinlock implementation would pollute
> > > > the spinlock value, so let's use static keys.
> > > >
> > > > This is largely based on Guo's work and Leonardo reviews at [1].
> > > >
> > > > Link: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-riscv/20231225125847.2778638-1-guoren@kernel.org/ [1]
> > > > Signed-off-by: Guo Ren <guoren@...nel.org>
> > > > Signed-off-by: Alexandre Ghiti <alexghiti@...osinc.com>
> > > > ---
> > > > .../locking/queued-spinlocks/arch-support.txt | 2 +-
> > > > arch/riscv/Kconfig | 29 +++++++++++++
> > > > arch/riscv/include/asm/Kbuild | 4 +-
> > > > arch/riscv/include/asm/spinlock.h | 43 +++++++++++++++++++
> > > > arch/riscv/kernel/setup.c | 38 ++++++++++++++++
> > > > include/asm-generic/qspinlock.h | 2 +
> > > > include/asm-generic/ticket_spinlock.h | 2 +
> > > > 7 files changed, 118 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> > > > create mode 100644 arch/riscv/include/asm/spinlock.h
> > > >
> > > > diff --git a/Documentation/features/locking/queued-spinlocks/arch-support.txt b/Documentation/features/locking/queued-spinlocks/arch-support.txt
> > > > index 22f2990392ff..cf26042480e2 100644
> > > > --- a/Documentation/features/locking/queued-spinlocks/arch-support.txt
> > > > +++ b/Documentation/features/locking/queued-spinlocks/arch-support.txt
> > > > @@ -20,7 +20,7 @@
> > > > | openrisc: | ok |
> > > > | parisc: | TODO |
> > > > | powerpc: | ok |
> > > > - | riscv: | TODO |
> > > > + | riscv: | ok |
> > > > | s390: | TODO |
> > > > | sh: | TODO |
> > > > | sparc: | ok |
> > > > diff --git a/arch/riscv/Kconfig b/arch/riscv/Kconfig
> > > > index ef55ab94027e..c9ff8081efc1 100644
> > > > --- a/arch/riscv/Kconfig
> > > > +++ b/arch/riscv/Kconfig
> > > > @@ -79,6 +79,7 @@ config RISCV
> > > > select ARCH_WANT_OPTIMIZE_HUGETLB_VMEMMAP
> > > > select ARCH_WANTS_NO_INSTR
> > > > select ARCH_WANTS_THP_SWAP if HAVE_ARCH_TRANSPARENT_HUGEPAGE
> > > > + select ARCH_WEAK_RELEASE_ACQUIRE if ARCH_USE_QUEUED_SPINLOCKS
> > > Why do we need this? Also, we presumably would prefer not to have it
> > > when we end up using ticket spinlocks when combo spinlocks is selected.
> > > Is there no way to avoid it?
> > I'll let Andrea answer this as he asked for it.
> >
> > > > select BINFMT_FLAT_NO_DATA_START_OFFSET if !MMU
> > > > select BUILDTIME_TABLE_SORT if MMU
> > > > select CLINT_TIMER if RISCV_M_MODE
> > > > @@ -488,6 +489,34 @@ config NODES_SHIFT
> > > > Specify the maximum number of NUMA Nodes available on the target
> > > > system. Increases memory reserved to accommodate various tables.
> > > >
> > > > +choice
> > > > + prompt "RISC-V spinlock type"
> > > > + default RISCV_COMBO_SPINLOCKS
> > > > +
> > > > +config RISCV_TICKET_SPINLOCKS
> > > > + bool "Using ticket spinlock"
> > > > +
> > > > +config RISCV_QUEUED_SPINLOCKS
> > > > + bool "Using queued spinlock"
> > > > + depends on SMP && MMU && NONPORTABLE
> > > > + select ARCH_USE_QUEUED_SPINLOCKS
> > > > + help
> > > > + The queued spinlock implementation requires the forward progress
> > > > + guarantee of cmpxchg()/xchg() atomic operations: CAS with Zabha or
> > > > + LR/SC with Ziccrse provide such guarantee.
> > > > +
> > > > + Select this if and only if Zabha or Ziccrse is available on your
> > > > + platform.
> > > Maybe some text recommending combo spinlocks here? As it stands it sounds
> > > like enabling queued spinlocks is a bad idea for anybody that doesn't know
> > > what platforms will run the kernel they're building, which is all distros.
> > That's NONPORTABLE, so people enabling this config are supposed to
> > know that right?
> >
> > > > +
> > > > +config RISCV_COMBO_SPINLOCKS
> > > > + bool "Using combo spinlock"
> > > > + depends on SMP && MMU
> > > > + select ARCH_USE_QUEUED_SPINLOCKS
> > > > + help
> > > > + Embed both queued spinlock and ticket lock so that the spinlock
> > > > + implementation can be chosen at runtime.
> > > nit: Add a blank line here
> > Done
> >
> > > > +endchoice
> > > > +
> > > > config RISCV_ALTERNATIVE
> > > > bool
> > > > depends on !XIP_KERNEL
> > > > diff --git a/arch/riscv/include/asm/Kbuild b/arch/riscv/include/asm/Kbuild
> > > > index 5c589770f2a8..1c2618c964f0 100644
> > > > --- a/arch/riscv/include/asm/Kbuild
> > > > +++ b/arch/riscv/include/asm/Kbuild
> > > > @@ -5,10 +5,12 @@ syscall-y += syscall_table_64.h
> > > > generic-y += early_ioremap.h
> > > > generic-y += flat.h
> > > > generic-y += kvm_para.h
> > > > +generic-y += mcs_spinlock.h
> > > > generic-y += parport.h
> > > > -generic-y += spinlock.h
> > > > generic-y += spinlock_types.h
> > > > +generic-y += ticket_spinlock.h
> > > > generic-y += qrwlock.h
> > > > generic-y += qrwlock_types.h
> > > > +generic-y += qspinlock.h
> > > > generic-y += user.h
> > > > generic-y += vmlinux.lds.h
> > > > diff --git a/arch/riscv/include/asm/spinlock.h b/arch/riscv/include/asm/spinlock.h
> > > > new file mode 100644
> > > > index 000000000000..503aef31db83
> > > > --- /dev/null
> > > > +++ b/arch/riscv/include/asm/spinlock.h
> > > > @@ -0,0 +1,43 @@
> > > > +/* SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0 */
> > > > +
> > > > +#ifndef __ASM_RISCV_SPINLOCK_H
> > > > +#define __ASM_RISCV_SPINLOCK_H
> > > > +
> > > > +#ifdef CONFIG_RISCV_COMBO_SPINLOCKS
> > > > +#define _Q_PENDING_LOOPS (1 << 9)
> > > > +
> > > > +#define __no_arch_spinlock_redefine
> > > > +#include <asm/ticket_spinlock.h>
> > > > +#include <asm/qspinlock.h>
> > > > +#include <asm/alternative.h>
> > > We need asm/jump_label.h instead of asm/alternative.h, but...
> > >
> > > > +
> > > > +DECLARE_STATIC_KEY_TRUE(qspinlock_key);
> > > > +
> > > > +#define SPINLOCK_BASE_DECLARE(op, type, type_lock) \
> > > > +static __always_inline type arch_spin_##op(type_lock lock) \
> > > > +{ \
> > > > + if (static_branch_unlikely(&qspinlock_key)) \
> > > > + return queued_spin_##op(lock); \
> > > > + return ticket_spin_##op(lock); \
> > > > +}
> > > ...do you know what impact this inlined static key check has on the
> > > kernel size?
> > No, I'll check, thanks.
>
>
> So I have just checked the size of the jump table section:
>
> * defconfig:
>
> - ticket: 26928 bytes
> - combo: 28320 bytes
>
> So that's a ~5% increase.
>
> * ubuntu config
>
> - ticket: 107840 bytes
> - combo: 174752 bytes
>
> And that's a ~62% increase.
>
> This is the ELF size difference between ticket and combo spinlocks:
>
> * ticket: 776915592 bytes
> * combo: 786958968 bytes
>
> So that's an increase of ~1.3% on the ELF.
>
> And the .text section size:
>
> * ticket: 12290960 bytes
> * combo: 12366644 bytes
>
> And that's a ~0.6% increase!
>
> Finally, I'd say the impact is very limited :)
Thanks for checking!
drew
Powered by blists - more mailing lists