linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] locking/local_lock, mm: Replace localtry_ helpers with local_trylock

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <dfcba7bacqwpwpdttj7y44ltyvdcclx7pibr4l3pwrfbmk6itl@pheighdusebk>
Date: Thu, 3 Apr 2025 14:53:17 -0700
From: Shakeel Butt <shakeel.butt@...ux.dev>
To: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>
Cc: Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com>, 
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>, bpf <bpf@...r.kernel.org>, 
	Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>, Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@...nel.org>, 
	Martin KaFai Lau <martin.lau@...nel.org>, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, 
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, Sebastian Sewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>, 
	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>, Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>, linux-mm <linux-mm@...ck.org>, 
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] locking/local_lock, mm: Replace localtry_ helpers
 with local_trylock_t type

On Thu, Apr 03, 2025 at 11:26:35AM +0200, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> On 4/2/25 23:40, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> > On Wed, Apr 2, 2025 at 1:56 PM Shakeel Butt <shakeel.butt@...ux.dev> wrote:
> >>
> >> On Tue, Apr 01, 2025 at 01:52:45PM -0700, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> >> > From: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>
> >> >
> >> > Partially revert commit 0aaddfb06882 ("locking/local_lock: Introduce localtry_lock_t").
> >> > Remove localtry_*() helpers, since localtry_lock() name might
> >> > be misinterpreted as "try lock".
> >> >
> >> > Introduce local_trylock[_irqsave]() helpers that only work
> >> > with newly introduced local_trylock_t type.
> >> > Note that attempt to use local_trylock[_irqsave]() with local_lock_t
> >> > will cause compilation failure.
> >> >
> >> > Usage and behavior in !PREEMPT_RT:
> >> >
> >> > local_lock_t lock;                     // sizeof(lock) == 0
> >> > local_lock(&lock);                     // preempt disable
> >> > local_lock_irqsave(&lock, ...);        // irq save
> >> > if (local_trylock_irqsave(&lock, ...)) // compilation error
> >> >
> >> > local_trylock_t lock;                  // sizeof(lock) == 4
> >>
> >> Is there a reason for this 'acquired' to be int? Can it be uint8_t? No
> >> need to change anything here but I plan to change it later to compact as
> >> much as possible within one (or two) cachline for memcg stocks.
> > 
> > I don't see any issue. I can make it u8 right away.
> 
> Are you planning to put the lock near other <64bit sized values in memcg
> stock? Otherwise it will be padded anyway?
> 

Something like following:

struct memcg_stock_pcp {
	local_trylock_t stock_lock;
	uint8_t size;
	uint8_t nr_pages[NR_CACHED];
	struct mem_cgroup *cached[NR_CACHED];
...
}

and then experiment with different values of NR_CACHED which puts all
these fields in 1 or 2 cachelines.