linux-kernel - Re: CONFIG_PREEMPT

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:	Mon, 10 Aug 2009 15:43:45 -0700
From:	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:	Hugh Dickins <hugh.dickins@...cali.co.uk>
Cc:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Ben Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: CONFIG_PREEMPT_RCU in next/mmotm

On Sun, Aug 09, 2009 at 08:39:07PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 09, 2009 at 02:16:29PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Sun, Aug 09, 2009 at 09:53:53PM +0100, Hugh Dickins wrote:
> > > On Sun, 9 Aug 2009, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > I introduced the problem in commit 7fe616c5dd50a50f334edec1ea0580b90b7af0d9
> > > > by changing from register_cpu_notifier() to hotcpu_notifier().  The former
> > > > lets you know when CPUs come on line unconditionally, the latter only
> > > > when CONFIG_HOTPLUG_CPU is in effect.
> > > > 
> > > > But hotcpu_notifier() is much nicer to use, so I propose introducing
> > > > a cpu_notifier() that is invoked like hotcpu_notifier() is, but is
> > > > unconditional in the same way that register_cpu_notifier().
> > > > 
> > > > Something like the following (untested, probably does not compile):
> > > > 
> > > > diff --git a/include/linux/cpu.h b/include/linux/cpu.h
> > > > index 4d668e0..d5dfc1f 100644
> > > > --- a/include/linux/cpu.h
> > > > +++ b/include/linux/cpu.h
> > > > @@ -48,6 +48,15 @@ struct notifier_block;
> > > >  
> > > >  #ifdef CONFIG_SMP
> > > >  /* Need to know about CPUs going up/down? */
> > > > +#if defined(CONFIG_HOTPLUG_CPU) || !defined(MODULE)
> > > > +#define cpu_notifier(fn, pri) {					\
> > > > +	static struct notifier_block fn##_nb __cpuinitdata =	\
> > > > +		{ .notifier_call = fn, .priority = pri };	\
> > > > +	register_cpu_notifier(&fn##_nb);			\
> > > > +}
> > > > +#else /* #if defined(CONFIG_HOTPLUG_CPU) || !defined(MODULE) */
> > > > +#define cpu_notifier(fn, pri)	do { (void)(fn); } while (0)
> > > > +#endif /* #else #if defined(CONFIG_HOTPLUG_CPU) || !defined(MODULE) */
> > > >  #ifdef CONFIG_HOTPLUG_CPU
> > > >  extern int register_cpu_notifier(struct notifier_block *nb);
> > > >  extern void unregister_cpu_notifier(struct notifier_block *nb);
> > > > @@ -99,11 +108,7 @@ extern struct sysdev_class cpu_sysdev_class;
> > > >  
> > > >  extern void get_online_cpus(void);
> > > >  extern void put_online_cpus(void);
> > > > -#define hotcpu_notifier(fn, pri) {				\
> > > > -	static struct notifier_block fn##_nb __cpuinitdata =	\
> > > > -		{ .notifier_call = fn, .priority = pri };	\
> > > > -	register_cpu_notifier(&fn##_nb);			\
> > > > -}
> > > > +#define hotcpu_notifier(fn, pri)	cpu_notifier(fn, pri)
> > > >  #define register_hotcpu_notifier(nb)	register_cpu_notifier(nb)
> > > >  #define unregister_hotcpu_notifier(nb)	unregister_cpu_notifier(nb)
> > > >  int cpu_down(unsigned int cpu);
> > > > diff --git a/kernel/rcupdate.c b/kernel/rcupdate.c
> > > > index 9f0584e..c1bbfd5 100644
> > > > --- a/kernel/rcupdate.c
> > > > +++ b/kernel/rcupdate.c
> > > > @@ -251,7 +251,7 @@ void __init rcu_init(void)
> > > >  	int i;
> > > >  
> > > >  	__rcu_init();
> > > > -	hotcpu_notifier(rcu_barrier_cpu_hotplug, 0);
> > > > +	cpu_notifier(rcu_barrier_cpu_hotplug, 0);
> > > >  
> > > >  	/*
> > > >  	 * We don't need protection against CPU-hotplug here because
> > > > 
> > > [ removed repeat of rcupdate.c patch ]
> > > > 
> > > > Thoughts?
> > > 
> > > That builds and works for me, with or without CONFIG_HOTPLUG_CPU.
> > > 
> > > But I didn't get what you're achieving with the MODULE part of it;
> > > and (I'm not a notifier buff at all) it does seems rather baroque to
> > > me - a single callsite, why not stick with register_cpu_notifier()?
> > > 
> > > Ah, perhaps it's your ambition to move others over to this
> > > (or perhaps it's your ambition to leave that to someone else ;-)
> > 
> > Actually, nothing quite that clearly thought out.  I was just following
> > the pattern set for register_cpu_notifier().  My guess at the reasoning
> > is that when !HOTPLUG_CPU, modules cannot be loaded until all the CPUs
> > are online, so there is no point in letting a module set itself up for
> > notification.
> > 
> > But whatever their reasoning, mine was that there is no point in
> > creating a struct notifier_block that wasn't going to be used.  ;-)
> 
> And the above patch fails for !CONFIG_SMP.  Here is an update, testing
> in progress.  Still not fully tested, but results are encouraging.
> In particular, this one is more likely to compile.

And this handled !CONFIG_SMP, but fails two of fifteen test cases.
So better, but still far from perfect.

Chasing the failures down.

							Thanx, Paul
--
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/