linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] tty: mips_ejtag_fdc: Call cpu_relax() in registers polling busy loops

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: <2024122019-blame-multitask-8d83@gregkh>
Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2024 16:06:44 +0100
From: Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To: Zhongqiu Han <quic_zhonhan@...cinc.com>
Cc: jirislaby@...nel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-serial@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] tty: mips_ejtag_fdc: Call cpu_relax() in registers
 polling busy loops

On Fri, Dec 20, 2024 at 09:46:27PM +0800, Zhongqiu Han wrote:
> On 12/19/2024 9:28 PM, Greg KH wrote:
> > On Thu, Dec 19, 2024 at 08:42:54PM +0800, Zhongqiu Han wrote:
> > > It is considered good practice to call cpu_relax() in busy loops, see
> > > Documentation/process/volatile-considered-harmful.rst. This can lower CPU
> > > power consumption or yield to a hyperthreaded twin processor, or serve as
> > > a compiler barrier. In addition, if something goes wrong in the busy loop
> > > at least it can prevent things from getting worse.
> > > 
> > > Signed-off-by: Zhongqiu Han <quic_zhonhan@...cinc.com>
> > > ---
> > >   drivers/tty/mips_ejtag_fdc.c | 4 ++--
> > >   1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> > > 
> > > diff --git a/drivers/tty/mips_ejtag_fdc.c b/drivers/tty/mips_ejtag_fdc.c
> > > index afbf7738c7c4..b17ead1e9698 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/tty/mips_ejtag_fdc.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/tty/mips_ejtag_fdc.c
> > > @@ -346,7 +346,7 @@ static void mips_ejtag_fdc_console_write(struct console *c, const char *s,
> > >   		/* Busy wait until there's space in fifo */
> > >   		while (__raw_readl(regs + REG_FDSTAT) & REG_FDSTAT_TXF)
> > > -			;
> > > +			cpu_relax();
> > >   		__raw_writel(word.word, regs + REG_FDTX(c->index));
> > >   	}
> > >   out:
> > > @@ -1233,7 +1233,7 @@ static void kgdbfdc_push_one(void)
> > >   	/* Busy wait until there's space in fifo */
> > >   	while (__raw_readl(regs + REG_FDSTAT) & REG_FDSTAT_TXF)
> > > -		;
> > > +		cpu_relax();
> > 
> > How did you test this?  Are you _sure_ it is needed at all?  I think you
> > just made these loops take a lot longer than before :(
> > 
> > Have you had problems with these tight loops doing anything bad to your
> > system?
> > 
> > thanks,
> > 
> > greg k-h
> 
> Hi Greg,
> Thanks a lot for the review~
> 
> Perhaps I should submit an RFC patch and explain the situation, as I
> don't have a MIPS device for testing. Indeed, the cpu_relax()
> implementation for MIPS is a memory barrier, which, compared to busy
> waiting, doesn't save power and can make loops slower than before.
> However, according to its definition file, for certain MIPS-based
> architectures like Loongarch-3, it can help force the Loongson-3 SFB
> (Store-Fill-Buffer) flush to avoid pending writes. Below is the
> implementation of cpu_relax() for the MIPS architecture and its
> comments.
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> arch/mips/include/asm/vdso/processor.h
> 
> #ifdef CONFIG_CPU_LOONGSON64
> /*
>  * Loongson-3's SFB (Store-Fill-Buffer) may buffer writes indefinitely
>  * when a tight read loop is executed, because reads take priority over
>  * writes & the hardware (incorrectly) doesn't ensure that writes will
>  * eventually occur.
>  *
>  * Since spin loops of any kind should have a cpu_relax() in them, force
>  * an SFB flush from cpu_relax() such that any pending writes will
>  * become visible as expected.
>  */
> #define cpu_relax()	smp_mb()
> #else
> #define cpu_relax()	barrier()
> #endif
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Based on this, cpu_relax() should be needed here? :)

I don't know, please test and let us know!

Without testing of this on real hardware, we can't take this change for
obvious reasons.

thanks,

greg k-h