linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH RFC tip/core/rcu 11/11] rcu: move TREE

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:	Wed, 23 Feb 2011 13:27:12 -0500
From:	Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...ymtl.ca>
To:	Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>
CC:	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
	Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, mingo@...e.hu, laijs@...fujitsu.com,
	dipankar@...ibm.com, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
	josh@...htriplett.org, niv@...ibm.com, tglx@...utronix.de,
	peterz@...radead.org, Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu, dhowells@...hat.com,
	eric.dumazet@...il.com, darren@...art.com,
	"Paul E. McKenney" <paul.mckenney@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC tip/core/rcu 11/11] rcu: move TREE_RCU from softirq
	to kthread

* Christoph Lameter (cl@...ux.com) wrote:
> On Wed, 23 Feb 2011, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
> 
> > > > > +
> > > > > +	local_irq_save(flags);
> > > > > +	cpu = smp_processor_id();
> 
> Drop this line.
> 
> > > > > +	if (per_cpu(rcu_cpu_kthread_task, cpu) == NULL) {
> 
> use this_cpu_read(rcu_cpu_kthread_task)
> 
> > > > > +		local_irq_restore(flags);
> > > > > +		return;
> > > > > +	}
> > > > > +	per_cpu(rcu_cpu_has_work, cpu) = 1;
> 
> this_cpu_write(rcu_cpu_has_work, 1);
> 
> > This is not quite true on x86_64 and s390 anymore. __get_cpu_var() now
> > uses a segment selector override to get the local CPU variable on x86.
> > See x86's percpu.h for details.
> 
> __get_cpu_var cannot use a segment override since there are places where
> the address of the variable is taken. One needs to use this_cpu_ops for
> that.

Ah, thanks for the clarification :)

> 
> 
> > > True, but we could also argue that the multiple checks for being preempt
> > > can also be an issue.
> >
> > At least on x86 preemption don't actually need to be disabled: selection
> > of the right per-cpu memory location is done atomically with the rest of
> > the instruction by the segment selector.
> 
> Right.

Thanks,

Mathieu

-- 
Mathieu Desnoyers
Operating System Efficiency R&D Consultant
EfficiOS Inc.
http://www.efficios.com
--
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/