linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH 5/6] implement per-cpu&per-domain state machine call

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, 12 Mar 2012 16:15:32 -0700
From:	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:	Lai Jiangshan <eag0628@...il.com>,
	Lai Jiangshan <laijs@...fujitsu.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, mingo@...e.hu, dipankar@...ibm.com,
	akpm@...ux-foundation.org, mathieu.desnoyers@...ymtl.ca,
	josh@...htriplett.org, niv@...ibm.com, tglx@...utronix.de,
	rostedt@...dmis.org, Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu, dhowells@...hat.com,
	eric.dumazet@...il.com, darren@...art.com, fweisbec@...il.com,
	patches@...aro.org, tj@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 5/6] implement per-cpu&per-domain state machine
 call_srcu()

On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 09:25:16PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Mon, 2012-03-12 at 11:32 -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > And another question I should have asked to begin with...  Would each
> > VMA have its own SRCU domain, or are you thinking in terms of one
> > SRCU domain for all VMAs globally?
> 
> The latter, single domain for all objects.

OK.

> > If the latter, that pushes pretty strongly for per-CPU SRCU callback
> > lists. 
> 
> Agreed. I was under the impression the proposed thing had this, but on
> looking at it again it does not. Shouldn't be hard to add though.

Agreed, but see srcu_barrier()...

> >  Which brings up srcu_barrier() scalability (and yes, I am working
> > on rcu_barrier() scalability).  One way to handle this at least initially
> > is to have srcu_barrier() avoid enqueueing callbacks on CPUs whose
> > callback lists are empty.  In addition, if the loop over all CPUs is
> > preemptible, then there should not be much in the way of realtime issues.
> 
> Why do we have rcu_barrier() and how is it different from
> synchronize_rcu()?

We need rcu_barrier() in order to be able to safely unload modules that
use call_rcu().  If a module fails to invoke rcu_barrier() between its
last call_rcu() and its unloading, then its RCU callbacks can be fatally
disappointed to learn that their callback functions are no longer in
memory.  See http://lwn.net/Articles/202847/ for more info.

While synchronize_rcu() waits only for a grace period, rcu_barrier()
waits for all pre-existing RCU callbacks to be invoked.  There is also
an rcu_barrier_bh() and rcu_barrier_sched().

Of course, if all uses of call_srcu() were to be from the main kernel
(as opposed to from a module), then there would be no need for a
srcu_barrier().  But it seems quite likely that if a call_srcu() is
available, its use from a module won't be far behind -- especially
given that rcutorture is normally built as a kernel module.

							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/