From: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
To: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
Cc: Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org>,
"catalin.marinas@arm.com" <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
Jan Glauber <jglauber@marvell.com>,
"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Jayachandran Chandrasekharan Nair <jnair@marvell.com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
"linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org"
<linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC] Disable lockref on arm64
Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2019 22:41:41 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <201906172233.F753B92@keescook> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20190617172620.GK30800@fuggles.cambridge.arm.com>
On Mon, Jun 17, 2019 at 06:26:20PM +0100, Will Deacon wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 17, 2019 at 01:33:19PM +0200, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> > On my single core TX2, the comparative performance is as follows
> >
> > Baseline: REFCOUNT_TIMING test using REFCOUNT_FULL (LSE cmpxchg)
> > 191057942484 cycles # 2.207 GHz
> > 148447589402 instructions # 0.78 insn per
> > cycle
> >
> > 86.568269904 seconds time elapsed
> >
> > Upper bound: ATOMIC_TIMING
> > 116252672661 cycles # 2.207 GHz
> > 28089216452 instructions # 0.24 insn per
> > cycle
> >
> > 52.689793525 seconds time elapsed
> >
> > REFCOUNT_TIMING test using LSE atomics
> > 127060259162 cycles # 2.207 GHz
>
> Ok, so assuming JC's complaint is valid, then these numbers are compelling.
> In particular, my understanding of this thread is that your optimised
> implementation doesn't actually sacrifice any precision; it just changes
> the saturation behaviour in a way that has no material impact. Kees, is that
> right?
That is my understanding, yes. There is no loss to detection precision.
But for clarity, I should point out it has one behavioral change that is
the same change as on x86: the counter is now effectively a 31 bit counter
not a 32 bit counter, as the signed bit is being used for saturation.
> If so, I'm not against having this for arm64, with the premise that we can
> hide the REFCOUNT_FULL option entirely given that it would only serve to
> confuse if exposed.
If the LSE atomics version has overflow, dec-to-zero, and inc-from-zero
protections, then as far as I'm concerned, REFCOUNT_FULL doesn't need
to exist for arm64. On the Kconfig front, as long as there isn't a way
to revert refcount_t to atomic_t, I'm happy. :)
--
Kees Cook
_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
To: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
Cc: Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org>,
Jayachandran Chandrasekharan Nair <jnair@marvell.com>,
"catalin.marinas@arm.com" <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
Jan Glauber <jglauber@marvell.com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
"linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org"
<linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC] Disable lockref on arm64
Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2019 22:41:41 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <201906172233.F753B92@keescook> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20190617172620.GK30800@fuggles.cambridge.arm.com>
On Mon, Jun 17, 2019 at 06:26:20PM +0100, Will Deacon wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 17, 2019 at 01:33:19PM +0200, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> > On my single core TX2, the comparative performance is as follows
> >
> > Baseline: REFCOUNT_TIMING test using REFCOUNT_FULL (LSE cmpxchg)
> > 191057942484 cycles # 2.207 GHz
> > 148447589402 instructions # 0.78 insn per
> > cycle
> >
> > 86.568269904 seconds time elapsed
> >
> > Upper bound: ATOMIC_TIMING
> > 116252672661 cycles # 2.207 GHz
> > 28089216452 instructions # 0.24 insn per
> > cycle
> >
> > 52.689793525 seconds time elapsed
> >
> > REFCOUNT_TIMING test using LSE atomics
> > 127060259162 cycles # 2.207 GHz
>
> Ok, so assuming JC's complaint is valid, then these numbers are compelling.
> In particular, my understanding of this thread is that your optimised
> implementation doesn't actually sacrifice any precision; it just changes
> the saturation behaviour in a way that has no material impact. Kees, is that
> right?
That is my understanding, yes. There is no loss to detection precision.
But for clarity, I should point out it has one behavioral change that is
the same change as on x86: the counter is now effectively a 31 bit counter
not a 32 bit counter, as the signed bit is being used for saturation.
> If so, I'm not against having this for arm64, with the premise that we can
> hide the REFCOUNT_FULL option entirely given that it would only serve to
> confuse if exposed.
If the LSE atomics version has overflow, dec-to-zero, and inc-from-zero
protections, then as far as I'm concerned, REFCOUNT_FULL doesn't need
to exist for arm64. On the Kconfig front, as long as there isn't a way
to revert refcount_t to atomic_t, I'm happy. :)
--
Kees Cook
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-06-18 5:41 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 74+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-04-29 14:52 [RFC] Disable lockref on arm64 Jan Glauber
2019-04-29 14:52 ` Jan Glauber
2019-05-01 16:01 ` Will Deacon
2019-05-01 16:01 ` Will Deacon
2019-05-02 8:38 ` Jan Glauber
2019-05-02 8:38 ` Jan Glauber
2019-05-01 16:41 ` Linus Torvalds
2019-05-01 16:41 ` Linus Torvalds
2019-05-02 8:27 ` Jan Glauber
2019-05-02 8:27 ` Jan Glauber
2019-05-02 16:12 ` Linus Torvalds
2019-05-02 16:12 ` Linus Torvalds
2019-05-02 23:19 ` Jayachandran Chandrasekharan Nair
2019-05-02 23:19 ` Jayachandran Chandrasekharan Nair
2019-05-03 19:40 ` Linus Torvalds
2019-05-03 19:40 ` Linus Torvalds
2019-05-06 6:13 ` [EXT] " Jayachandran Chandrasekharan Nair
2019-05-06 6:13 ` Jayachandran Chandrasekharan Nair
2019-05-06 17:13 ` Linus Torvalds
2019-05-06 17:13 ` Linus Torvalds
2019-05-06 18:10 ` Will Deacon
2019-05-06 18:10 ` Will Deacon
2019-05-18 4:24 ` Jayachandran Chandrasekharan Nair
2019-05-18 4:24 ` Jayachandran Chandrasekharan Nair
2019-05-18 10:00 ` Ard Biesheuvel
2019-05-18 10:00 ` Ard Biesheuvel
2019-05-22 16:04 ` Will Deacon
2019-05-22 16:04 ` Will Deacon
2019-06-12 4:10 ` Jayachandran Chandrasekharan Nair
2019-06-12 4:10 ` Jayachandran Chandrasekharan Nair
2019-06-12 9:31 ` Will Deacon
2019-06-12 9:31 ` Will Deacon
2019-06-14 7:09 ` Jayachandran Chandrasekharan Nair
2019-06-14 7:09 ` Jayachandran Chandrasekharan Nair
2019-06-14 9:58 ` Will Deacon
2019-06-14 9:58 ` Will Deacon
2019-06-14 10:24 ` Ard Biesheuvel
2019-06-14 10:24 ` Ard Biesheuvel
2019-06-14 10:38 ` Will Deacon
2019-06-14 10:38 ` Will Deacon
2019-06-15 4:21 ` Kees Cook
2019-06-15 4:21 ` Kees Cook
2019-06-15 8:47 ` Ard Biesheuvel
2019-06-15 8:47 ` Ard Biesheuvel
2019-06-15 13:59 ` Kees Cook
2019-06-15 13:59 ` Kees Cook
2019-06-15 14:18 ` Ard Biesheuvel
2019-06-15 14:18 ` Ard Biesheuvel
2019-06-16 21:31 ` Kees Cook
2019-06-16 21:31 ` Kees Cook
2019-06-17 11:33 ` Ard Biesheuvel
2019-06-17 11:33 ` Ard Biesheuvel
2019-06-17 17:26 ` Will Deacon
2019-06-17 17:26 ` Will Deacon
2019-06-17 20:07 ` Jayachandran Chandrasekharan Nair
2019-06-17 20:07 ` Jayachandran Chandrasekharan Nair
2019-06-18 5:41 ` Kees Cook [this message]
2019-06-18 5:41 ` Kees Cook
2019-06-13 9:53 ` Hanjun Guo
2019-06-13 9:53 ` Hanjun Guo
2019-06-05 13:48 ` [PATCH] lockref: Limit number of cmpxchg loop retries Jan Glauber
2019-06-05 13:48 ` Jan Glauber
2019-06-05 20:16 ` Linus Torvalds
2019-06-05 20:16 ` Linus Torvalds
2019-06-06 8:03 ` Jan Glauber
2019-06-06 8:03 ` Jan Glauber
2019-06-06 9:41 ` Will Deacon
2019-06-06 9:41 ` Will Deacon
2019-06-06 10:28 ` Jan Glauber
2019-06-06 10:28 ` Jan Glauber
2019-06-07 7:27 ` Jan Glauber
2019-06-07 7:27 ` Jan Glauber
2019-06-07 20:14 ` Linus Torvalds
2019-06-07 20:14 ` Linus Torvalds
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=201906172233.F753B92@keescook \
--to=keescook@chromium.org \
--cc=ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org \
--cc=catalin.marinas@arm.com \
--cc=jglauber@marvell.com \
--cc=jnair@marvell.com \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=will.deacon@arm.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.