linux-kernel - Re: Q: smp.c && barriers (Was: [PATCH 1/4] generic-smp: remove single ipi fallback for smp_call_function

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:	Tue, 17 Feb 2009 11:27:33 +0100
From:	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
To:	Nick Piggin <npiggin@...e.de>
Cc:	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
	Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@...cle.com>,
	Suresh Siddha <suresh.b.siddha@...el.com>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>,
	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Q: smp.c && barriers (Was: [PATCH 1/4] generic-smp: remove
 single ipi fallback for smp_call_function_many())

On Tue, 2009-02-17 at 11:11 +0100, Nick Piggin wrote:

> But in that case, cpu0 should see list_empty and send another IPI,
> because our load of list_empty has moved before the unlock of the
> lock, so there can't be another item concurrently put on the list.

Suppose a first smp_call_function_single()

So cpu0 does:

 spin_lock(dst->lock);
 ipi = list_empty(dst->list);
 list_add_tail(data->list, dst->list);
 spin_unlock(dst->lock);

 if (ipi) /* true */
   send_single_ipi(cpu);

then cpu1 does:

 while (!list_empty(q->list))

and observes no entries, quits the ipi handler, and stuff is stuck.

cpu0 will observe a non-empty queue and will not raise another ipi, cpu1
got the ipi, but observed no work and hence will not remove it.

> But hmm, why even bother with all this complexity? Why not just
> remove the outer loop completely? Do the lock and the list_replace_init
> unconditionally. It would turn tricky lockless code into simple locked
> code... we've already taken an interrupt anyway, so chances are pretty
> high that we have work here to do, right?

Well, that's a practical suggestion, and I agree.

It was just fun arguing with Oleg ;-)

--
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/