linux-kernel - Re: [RFC][PATCH 17/18] sched: Move the second half of ttwu() to the remote cpu

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, 06 Jan 2011 16:09:37 +0100
From:	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
To:	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
Cc:	Chris Mason <chris.mason@...cle.com>,
	Frank Rowand <frank.rowand@...sony.com>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>, Paul Turner <pjt@...gle.com>,
	Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>,
	Yong Zhang <yong.zhang0@...il.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 17/18] sched: Move the second half of ttwu() to
 the remote cpu

On Wed, 2011-01-05 at 22:07 +0100, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> On 01/04, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> >
> > Now that we've removed the rq->lock requirement from the first part of
> > ttwu() and can compute placement without holding any rq->lock, ensure
> > we execute the second half of ttwu() on the actual cpu we want the
> > task to run on.
> 
> Damn. I am reading this patch back and forth, many times, and
> I am not able to find any problem. So sad!

:-)

> I'll try to read it once again with the fresh head, though ;)
> I also have a couple of very minor nits... In particular, perhaps
> TASK_WAKING can die...

I think it might.. I'll do a patch at the end removing it, lets see what
happens.

> Just one question for today,
> 
> >  try_to_wake_up(struct task_struct *p, unsigned int state, int wake_flags)
> >  {
> > -	int cpu, this_cpu, success = 0;
> >  	unsigned long flags;
> > -	struct rq *rq;
> > -
> > -	this_cpu = get_cpu();
> > +	int cpu, success = 0;
> >
> >  	smp_wmb();
> >  	raw_spin_lock_irqsave(&p->pi_lock, flags);
> >  	if (!(p->state & state))
> >  		goto out;
> >
> > +	success = 1; /* we're going to change ->state */
> >  	cpu = task_cpu(p);
> >
> > -	if (p->on_rq) {
> > -		rq = __task_rq_lock(p);
> > -		if (p->on_rq)
> > -			goto out_running;
> > -		__task_rq_unlock(rq);
> > -	}
> > +	if (p->on_rq && ttwu_remote(p, wake_flags))
> > +		goto stat;
> > +
> > +	p->sched_contributes_to_load = !!task_contributes_to_load(p);
> > +	p->state = TASK_WAKING;
> >
> >  #ifdef CONFIG_SMP
> > +	/*
> > +	 * If the owning (remote) cpu is still in the middle of schedule() with
> > +	 * this task as prev, wait until its done referencing the task.
> > +	 */
> >  	while (p->on_cpu)
> >  		cpu_relax();
> 
> Don't we need rmb() after that?
> 
> No, I am not saying it _is_ needed. I am asking.

OK, so I've been thinking and all I can say is that I've got a head-ache
and that I _think_ you're right.. while it doesn't matter for the
observance of p->on_cpu itself, we don't want other reads to be done
before we do indeed observe it.

> (but need_migrate_task() can avoid on_cpu+rmb afaics)

I think so too, I'll stick a patch to that effect at the end.

Current queue lives at:
  http://programming.kicks-ass.net/sekrit/patches-ttwu.tar.bz2


--
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/