linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 10/43] stop_machine: reimplement without using 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:	Sun, 28 Feb 2010 15:11:35 +0100
From:	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To:	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
Cc:	torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, mingo@...e.hu, peterz@...radead.org,
	awalls@...ix.net, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, jeff@...zik.org,
	akpm@...ux-foundation.org, jens.axboe@...cle.com,
	rusty@...tcorp.com.au, cl@...ux-foundation.org,
	dhowells@...hat.com, arjan@...ux.intel.com, avi@...hat.com,
	johannes@...solutions.net, andi@...stfloor.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 10/43] stop_machine: reimplement without using workqueue

On 02/26, Tejun Heo wrote:
>
> +static int stop_cpu(void *unused)
>  {
>  	enum stopmachine_state curstate = STOPMACHINE_NONE;
> -	struct stop_machine_data *smdata = &idle;
> +	struct stop_machine_data *smdata;
>  	int cpu = smp_processor_id();
>  	int err;
>
> +repeat:
> +	/* Wait for __stop_machine() to initiate */
> +	while (true) {
> +		set_current_state(TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE);
> +		/* <- kthread_stop() and __stop_machine()::smp_wmb() */
> +		if (kthread_should_stop()) {
> +			__set_current_state(TASK_RUNNING);
> +			return 0;
> +		}
> +		if (state == STOPMACHINE_PREPARE)
> +			break;

Cosmetic nit: this doesn't matter at all, but perhaps it makes sense
to set TASK_RUNNING here too.

Actually, I was a bit confused by this "while (true)" loop. It looks
as if a spurious wakeup is possible. It is not, and more importantly,
if it was possible stop_machine_cpu_callback(CPU_POST_DEAD) (which is
called after cpu_hotplug_done()) could race with stop_machine().
stop_machine_cpu_callback(CPU_POST_DEAD) relies on fact that this thread
has already called schedule() and it can't be woken until kthread_stop()
sets ->should_stop.

> +		schedule();
> +	}
> +	smp_rmb();	/* <- __stop_machine()::set_state() */
> +
> +	/* Okay, let's go */
> +	smdata = &idle;
>  	if (!active_cpus) {
>  		if (cpu == cpumask_first(cpu_online_mask))
>  			smdata = &active;

I never understood why do we need "struct stop_machine_data idle".
stop_cpu() just needs a "bool should_call_active_fn" ?

>  int __stop_machine(int (*fn)(void *), void *data, const struct cpumask *cpus)
>  {
> ...
>  	/* Schedule the stop_cpu work on all cpus: hold this CPU so one
>  	 * doesn't hit this CPU until we're ready. */
>  	get_cpu();
> +	for_each_online_cpu(i)
> +		wake_up_process(*per_cpu_ptr(stop_machine_threads, i));

I think the comment is wrong, and we need preempt_disable() instead
of get_cpu(). We shouldn't worry about this CPU, but we need to ensure
the woken real-time thread can't preempt us until we wake up them all.

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/