netdev - Re: [PATCH v2 0/9] Remove spin_unlock

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: <20170706165036.v4u5rbz56si4emw5@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date:   Thu, 6 Jul 2017 18:50:36 +0200
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:     "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc:     David Laight <David.Laight@...LAB.COM>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "netfilter-devel@...r.kernel.org" <netfilter-devel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        "oleg@...hat.com" <oleg@...hat.com>,
        "akpm@...ux-foundation.org" <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        "mingo@...hat.com" <mingo@...hat.com>,
        "dave@...olabs.net" <dave@...olabs.net>,
        "manfred@...orfullife.com" <manfred@...orfullife.com>,
        "tj@...nel.org" <tj@...nel.org>, "arnd@...db.de" <arnd@...db.de>,
        "linux-arch@...r.kernel.org" <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>,
        "will.deacon@....com" <will.deacon@....com>,
        "stern@...land.harvard.edu" <stern@...land.harvard.edu>,
        "parri.andrea@...il.com" <parri.andrea@...il.com>,
        "torvalds@...ux-foundation.org" <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/9] Remove spin_unlock_wait()

On Thu, Jul 06, 2017 at 09:20:24AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 06, 2017 at 06:05:55PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Thu, Jul 06, 2017 at 02:12:24PM +0000, David Laight wrote:
> > > From: Paul E. McKenney
> 
> [ . . . ]
> 
> > Now on the one hand I feel like Oleg that it would be a shame to loose
> > the optimization, OTOH this thing is really really tricky to use,
> > and has lead to a number of bugs already.
> 
> I do agree, it is a bit sad to see these optimizations go.  So, should
> this make mainline, I will be tagging the commits that spin_unlock_wait()
> so that they can be easily reverted should someone come up with good
> semantics and a compelling use case with compelling performance benefits.

Ha!, but what would constitute 'good semantics' ?

The current thing is something along the lines of:

  "Waits for the currently observed critical section
   to complete with ACQUIRE ordering such that it will observe
   whatever state was left by said critical section."

With the 'obvious' benefit of limited interference on those actually
wanting to acquire the lock, and a shorter wait time on our side too,
since we only need to wait for completion of the current section, and
not for however many contender are before us.

Not sure I have an actual (micro) benchmark that shows a difference
though.



Is this all good enough to retain the thing, I dunno. Like I said, I'm
conflicted on the whole thing. On the one hand its a nice optimization,
on the other hand I don't want to have to keep fixing these bugs.