| 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
| ||
|
Date: Sun, 04 Jan 2009 13:39:57 +0800
From: Lai Jiangshan <laijs@...fujitsu.com>
To: Manfred Spraul <manfred@...orfullife.com>
CC: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [RFC, PATCH] kernel/rcu: add kfree_rcu
Hi, Manfred Spraul,
Thanks you for re-propose kfree_rcu().
I NAK. this patch.
Comparing with my patch(V1), your patch has several improvements.
But core idea is the same as my patch.
This idea(share offset with function pointer) has some disadvantages.
And I had implemented V2 and the patches for using kfree_rcu().
The V2 patch has not tested enough, but It will be done in one month.
Thanks!
Lai.
Manfred Spraul wrote:
> Based on the idea from Lai Jiangshan:
>
> There are 23 instances where the rcu callback just does
>
> kfree(containerof(rcu_member,struct whatever_struct,head));
>
> The 23 instances exist because there are 23 'struct whatever_struct' with
> their individual rcu_member.
>
> The attached patch creates a generic kfree_rcu function that removes the need
> for these 23 helpers: The offset from the container struct to the rcu member
> is calculated at compile time and stored in head->func instead of the
> function pointer.
>
>
> Effect on .text: (x86_64)
> +23 bytes in rcutree.c
> - 9 bytes in ipc/sem.c
>
> Depending on the number of call_rcu instances in the .config, adding
> kfree_rcu should save between 100 and 200 bytes in .text.
>
> What do you think?
> Is the interface ok? Incorrect use should generate compile time errors.
> Is it ok to use IS_ERR(p)?
> And: How many seperate patches should I create?
> I would propose 24 patches: one with the interface, 23 that
> replace the individual callbacks.
>
> Signed-off-by: Manfred Spraul <manfred@...orfullife.com>
> ---
> include/linux/rcupdate.h | 33 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> ipc/sem.c | 10 ++--------
> kernel/rcuclassic.c | 2 +-
> kernel/rcupreempt.c | 2 +-
> kernel/rcutree.c | 2 +-
> 5 files changed, 38 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/include/linux/rcupdate.h b/include/linux/rcupdate.h
> index 1168fbc..d120014 100644
> --- a/include/linux/rcupdate.h
> +++ b/include/linux/rcupdate.h
> @@ -269,6 +269,29 @@ extern void call_rcu(struct rcu_head *head,
> extern void call_rcu_bh(struct rcu_head *head,
> void (*func)(struct rcu_head *head));
>
> +/**
> + * kfree_rcu - kfree after a grace period
> + * @ptr: pointer to kfree
> + * @rcu_member: name of the struct rcu_head member.
> + *
> + * Many rcu callbacks just call kfree() on the base structure. This helper
> + * function calls kfree internally. The rcu_head structure must be embedded
> + * in the to be freed structure.
> + */
> +
> +static inline void __kfree_rcu(void *prcu, unsigned long offset)
> +{
> + void (*pfnc)(struct rcu_head *head) = (void (*)(struct rcu_head *head))offset;
> +
> + BUILD_BUG_ON(!__builtin_constant_p(-offset));
> + BUILD_BUG_ON(!IS_ERR(pfnc));
> +
> + call_rcu(prcu, pfnc);
> +}
> +
> +#define kfree_rcu(pobj, entry) \
> + __kfree_rcu(&((pobj)->entry), -offsetof(typeof(*(pobj)), entry))
> +
> /* Exported common interfaces */
> extern void synchronize_rcu(void);
> extern void rcu_barrier(void);
> @@ -279,4 +302,14 @@ extern void rcu_barrier_sched(void);
> extern void rcu_init(void);
> extern int rcu_needs_cpu(int cpu);
>
> +/* helper functions */
> +static inline void rcu_docallback(struct rcu_head *head)
> +{
> + if (IS_ERR(head->func)) {
> + kfree(((char *)head) + (unsigned long)head->func);
> + } else {
> + head->func(head);
> + }
> +}
> +
> #endif /* __LINUX_RCUPDATE_H */
> diff --git a/ipc/sem.c b/ipc/sem.c
> index 0821224..4a68cf2 100644
> --- a/ipc/sem.c
> +++ b/ipc/sem.c
> @@ -504,12 +504,6 @@ static int count_semzcnt (struct sem_array * sma, ushort semnum)
> return semzcnt;
> }
>
> -static void free_un(struct rcu_head *head)
> -{
> - struct sem_undo *un = container_of(head, struct sem_undo, rcu);
> - kfree(un);
> -}
> -
> /* Free a semaphore set. freeary() is called with sem_ids.rw_mutex locked
> * as a writer and the spinlock for this semaphore set hold. sem_ids.rw_mutex
> * remains locked on exit.
> @@ -528,7 +522,7 @@ static void freeary(struct ipc_namespace *ns, struct kern_ipc_perm *ipcp)
> un->semid = -1;
> list_del_rcu(&un->list_proc);
> spin_unlock(&un->ulp->lock);
> - call_rcu(&un->rcu, free_un);
> + kfree_rcu(un, rcu);
> }
>
> /* Wake up all pending processes and let them fail with EIDRM. */
> @@ -1347,7 +1341,7 @@ void exit_sem(struct task_struct *tsk)
> update_queue(sma);
> sem_unlock(sma);
>
> - call_rcu(&un->rcu, free_un);
> + kfree_rcu(un, rcu);
> }
> kfree(ulp);
> }
> diff --git a/kernel/rcuclassic.c b/kernel/rcuclassic.c
> index e503a00..b2f97d2 100644
> --- a/kernel/rcuclassic.c
> +++ b/kernel/rcuclassic.c
> @@ -336,7 +336,7 @@ static void rcu_do_batch(struct rcu_data *rdp)
> while (list) {
> next = list->next;
> prefetch(next);
> - list->func(list);
> + rcu_docallback(list);
> list = next;
> if (++count >= rdp->blimit)
> break;
> diff --git a/kernel/rcupreempt.c b/kernel/rcupreempt.c
> index 0498265..8440dac 100644
> --- a/kernel/rcupreempt.c
> +++ b/kernel/rcupreempt.c
> @@ -1110,7 +1110,7 @@ static void rcu_process_callbacks(struct softirq_action *unused)
> spin_unlock_irqrestore(&rdp->lock, flags);
> while (list) {
> next = list->next;
> - list->func(list);
> + rcu_docallback(list);
> list = next;
> RCU_TRACE_ME(rcupreempt_trace_invoke);
> }
> diff --git a/kernel/rcutree.c b/kernel/rcutree.c
> index a342b03..29c88ce 100644
> --- a/kernel/rcutree.c
> +++ b/kernel/rcutree.c
> @@ -901,7 +901,7 @@ static void rcu_do_batch(struct rcu_data *rdp)
> while (list) {
> next = list->next;
> prefetch(next);
> - list->func(list);
> + rcu_docallback(list);
> list = next;
> if (++count >= rdp->blimit)
> break;
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists