linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v6 13/13] riscv: Add qspinlock support

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CAJF2gTTuvmtmKVFMZCTMxEWHrpSpqPE8QO4MC5njPAskGEmpig@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2024 09:49:15 +0800
From: Guo Ren <guoren@...nel.org>
To: Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>
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>, 
	Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>, Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>, 
	Leonardo Bras <leobras@...hat.com>, 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 v6 13/13] riscv: Add qspinlock support

On Tue, Nov 12, 2024 at 12:43 AM Will Deacon <will@...nel.org> wrote:
>
> On Sun, Nov 03, 2024 at 03:51:53PM +0100, 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.
>
> I think the static key toggling takes a mutex (jump_label_lock()) which
> can take a spinlock (lock->wait_lock) internally, so I don't grok how
> this works:
>
> > +static void __init riscv_spinlock_init(void)
> > +{
> > +     char *using_ext = NULL;
> > +
> > +     if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_RISCV_TICKET_SPINLOCKS)) {
> > +             pr_info("Ticket spinlock: enabled\n");
> > +             return;
> > +     }
> > +
> > +     if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_RISCV_ISA_ZABHA) &&
> > +         IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_RISCV_ISA_ZACAS) &&
> > +         riscv_isa_extension_available(NULL, ZABHA) &&
> > +         riscv_isa_extension_available(NULL, ZACAS)) {
> > +             using_ext = "using Zabha";
> > +     } else if (riscv_isa_extension_available(NULL, ZICCRSE)) {
> > +             using_ext = "using Ziccrse";
> > +     }
> > +#if defined(CONFIG_RISCV_COMBO_SPINLOCKS)
> > +     else {
> > +             static_branch_disable(&qspinlock_key);
> > +             pr_info("Ticket spinlock: enabled\n");
> > +             return;
> > +     }
> > +#endif
>
> i.e. we've potentially already used the qspinlock at this point.
Yes, I've used qspinlock here. But riscv_spinlock_init is called with
irq_disabled and smp_off. That means this qspinlock only performs a
test-set lock behavior by qspinlock fast-path.

The qspinlock is a clean implementation. After qspin_unlock, the lock
value remains at zero, but the ticket lock makes the value dirty. So
we use Qspinlock at first or change it to ticket-lock before irq & smp
up.

>
> Will



-- 
Best Regards
 Guo Ren