linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/3] work_on_cpu: Use our own workqueue.

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]

Date:	Thu, 29 Jan 2009 21:09:23 +1030
From:	Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>
To:	Mike Travis <travis@....com>
Cc:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Dave Jones <davej@...hat.com>,
	cpufreq@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] work_on_cpu: Use our own workqueue.

On Thursday 29 January 2009 04:02:42 Mike Travis wrote:
> Mike Travis wrote:
> > Hi Rusty,
> > 
> > I'm testing this now on x86_64 and one question comes up.  The
> > initialization of the woc_wq thread happens quite late.  Might it
> > be better to initialize it earlier?
> 
> Umm, definitely needed earlier...  A bug catcher caught this.  Work_on_cpu
> is being called before it's initialized.
>
> [   16.541297] calling  microcode_init+0x0/0x13a @ 1

OK, core_initcall will be sufficient to call before this one.

I also want to change the code so that the affinity is set from work_on_cpu rather than the thread itself; it's slightly more efficient.

Here's a patch-on-top.

work_on_cpu: bug fix and enhancements

Make it a core_initcall, since a module_initcall needs it.

Also, make the caller set the affinity of the worker thread: this is
more efficient than setting our own affinity (which requires the
migration thread's help).

This has two side effects:
1) We will oops if work_on_cpu is called too early,
2) We can WARN_ON and just run on the wrong cpu rather than locking up if
   they ask for an offline cpu (bug compatible old method of calling
   set_cpus_allowed).

Test code exercises WARN_ON; you probably want to remove it.

Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>

diff --git a/kernel/work_on_cpu.c b/kernel/work_on_cpu.c
--- a/kernel/work_on_cpu.c
+++ b/kernel/work_on_cpu.c
@@ -5,6 +5,10 @@
 #include <linux/cpumask.h>
 #include <linux/module.h>
 
+#define DEBUG
+
+/* The thread which actually does the work. */
+static struct task_struct *woc_thread;
 /* The thread waits for new work on this waitqueue. */
 static DECLARE_WAIT_QUEUE_HEAD(woc_wq);
 /* The lock ensures only one job is done at a time. */
@@ -12,7 +16,9 @@ static DEFINE_MUTEX(woc_mutex);
 
 /* The details of the current job. */
 struct work_for_cpu {
+#ifdef DEBUG
 	unsigned int cpu;
+#endif
 	long (*fn)(void *);
 	void *arg;
 	long ret;
@@ -33,8 +39,9 @@ static int do_work_on_cpu(void *unused)
 
 		wait_event(woc_wq, current_work != NULL);
 
-		set_cpus_allowed_ptr(current, cpumask_of(current_work->cpu));
+#ifdef DEBUG
 		WARN_ON(smp_processor_id() != current_work->cpu);
+#endif
 
 		current_work->ret = current_work->fn(current_work->arg);
 		/* Make sure ret is set before we complete().  Paranoia. */
@@ -62,12 +69,21 @@ long work_on_cpu(unsigned int cpu, long 
 {
 	struct work_for_cpu work;
 
+#ifdef DEBUG
 	work.cpu = cpu;
+#endif
 	work.fn = fn;
 	work.arg = arg;
 	init_completion(&work.done);
 
 	mutex_lock(&woc_mutex);
+	if (set_cpus_allowed_ptr(woc_thread, cpumask_of(cpu)) != 0) {
+		WARN(1, "work_on_cpu on offline cpu %i?\n", cpu);
+#ifdef DEBUG
+		/* Avoids the additional WARN_ON in the thread. */
+		work.cpu = task_cpu(woc_thread);
+#endif
+	}
 	/* Make sure all is in place before it sees fn set. */
 	wmb();
 	current_work = &work;
@@ -81,7 +97,7 @@ long work_on_cpu(unsigned int cpu, long 
 }
 EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(work_on_cpu);
 
-#if 1
+#ifdef DEBUG
 static long test_fn(void *arg)
 {
 	printk("%u: %lu\n", smp_processor_id(), (long)arg);
@@ -93,16 +109,16 @@ static int __init init(void)
 {
 	unsigned int i;
 
-	kthread_run(do_work_on_cpu, NULL, "kwork_on_cpu");
+	woc_thread = kthread_run(do_work_on_cpu, NULL, "kwork_on_cpu");
 
-#if 1
-	for_each_online_cpu(i) {
+#ifdef DEBUG
+	for_each_possible_cpu(i) {
 		long ret = work_on_cpu(i, test_fn, (void *)i);
 		printk("CPU %i returned %li\n", i, ret);
-		BUG_ON(ret != i + 100);
+		BUG_ON(cpu_online(i) && ret != i + 100);
 	}
 #endif
 
 	return 0;
 }
-module_init(init);
+core_initcall(init);
--
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/