linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH 00/10] Cleanup ipi_call_lock[_irq]()/ipi_call_unlock[

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:	Tue, 29 May 2012 10:32:15 +0200
From:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:	Yong Zhang <yong.zhang0@...il.com>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, ralf@...ux-mips.org,
	sshtylyov@...sta.com, david.daney@...ium.com,
	nikunj@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
	axboe@...nel.dk, mingo@...nel.org, tglx@...utronix.de,
	akpm@...ux-foundation.org, srivatsa.bhat@...ux.vnet.ibm.com
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 00/10] Cleanup
 ipi_call_lock[_irq]()/ipi_call_unlock[_irq]()

On Tue, 2012-05-29 at 10:28 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, 2012-05-29 at 15:15 +0800, Yong Zhang wrote:
> > As discussed with Srivatsa [1], it seems there is no need to keep
> > ipi_call_[un]lock_irq() when cpu bring-up/down. Because:
> > 
> > 1) call_function.lock used in smp_call_function_many() is just to protect
> >    call_function.queue and &data->refs, cpu_online_mask is outside of the
> >    lock. And it's not necessary to protect cpu_online_mask,
> >    because data->cpumask is pre-calculate and even if a cpu is brougt up
> >    when calling arch_send_call_function_ipi_mask(), it's harmless because
> >    validation test in generic_smp_call_function_interrupt() will take care
> >    of it.
> > 
> > 2) For cpu down issue, stop_machine() will guarantee that no concurrent
> >    smp_call_fuction() is processing. 
> 
> But that lock was only taken around setting a cpu online, so the offline
> case is pretty much irrelevant for these patches, right?

Ah, I see, some archs also did it on offline.

> That said, is there an alternative to stop_machine on the down side?
> 
> I guess flipping the cpu offline and then doing synchronize_sched()
> should suffice.

--
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/