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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Message-ID: <fd375869-ca43-b58f-025d-bd1e873e136a@colorfullife.com>
Date:   Mon, 10 Jul 2017 19:22:19 +0200
From:   Manfred Spraul <manfred@...orfullife.com>
To:     Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
Cc:     "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        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>,
        "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>,
        "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()

Hi Alan,

On 07/08/2017 06:21 PM, Alan Stern wrote:
> Pardon me for barging in, but I found this whole interchange extremely
> confusing...
>
> On Sat, 8 Jul 2017, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
>> * Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Sat, Jul 08, 2017 at 10:35:43AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>>>> * Manfred Spraul <manfred@...orfullife.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Hi Ingo,
>>>>>
>>>>> On 07/07/2017 10:31 AM, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>>>>>> There's another, probably just as significant advantage: queued_spin_unlock_wait()
>>>>>> is 'read-only', while spin_lock()+spin_unlock() dirties the lock cache line. On
>>>>>> any bigger system this should make a very measurable difference - if
>>>>>> spin_unlock_wait() is ever used in a performance critical code path.
>>>>> At least for ipc/sem:
>>>>> Dirtying the cacheline (in the slow path) allows to remove a smp_mb() in the
>>>>> hot path.
>>>>> So for sem_lock(), I either need a primitive that dirties the cacheline or
>>>>> sem_lock() must continue to use spin_lock()/spin_unlock().
> This statement doesn't seem to make sense.  Did Manfred mean to write
> "smp_mb()" instead of "spin_lock()/spin_unlock()"?
Option 1:
     fastpath:
         spin_lock(local_lock)
         smp_mb(); [[1]]
         smp_load_acquire(global_flag);
     slow path:
         global_flag = 1;
         smp_mb();
         <spin_unlock_wait_without_cacheline_dirtying>

Option 2:
     fastpath:
         spin_lock(local_lock);
         smp_load_acquire(global_flag)
     slow path:
         global_flag = 1;
         spin_lock(local_lock);spin_unlock(local_lock).

Rational:
The ACQUIRE from spin_lock is at the read of local_lock, not at the write.
i.e.: Without the smp_mb() at [[1]], the CPU can do:
         read local_lock;
         read global_flag;
         write local_lock;
For Option 2, the smp_mb() is not required, because fast path and slow 
path acquire the same lock.

>>>> Technically you could use spin_trylock()+spin_unlock() and avoid the lock acquire
>>>> spinning on spin_unlock() and get very close to the slow path performance of a
>>>> pure cacheline-dirtying behavior.
> This is even more confusing.  Did Ingo mean to suggest using
> "spin_trylock()+spin_unlock()" in place of "spin_lock()+spin_unlock()"
> could provide the desired ordering guarantee without delaying other
> CPUs that may try to acquire the lock?  That seems highly questionable.
I agree :-)

--
     Manfred