| 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
| ||
|
Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2012 11:45:10 -0700 From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> To: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org Cc: mingo@...e.hu, laijs@...fujitsu.com, dipankar@...ibm.com, akpm@...ux-foundation.org, mathieu.desnoyers@...ymtl.ca, josh@...htriplett.org, niv@...ibm.com, tglx@...utronix.de, peterz@...radead.org, rostedt@...dmis.org, Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu, dhowells@...hat.com, eric.dumazet@...il.com, darren@...art.com, fweisbec@...il.com, sbw@....edu, patches@...aro.org, "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> Subject: [PATCH tip/core/rcu 3/5] rcu: Document SRCU dead-CPU capabilities, emphasize read-side limits From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> The current documentation did not help someone grepping for SRCU to learn that disabling preemption is not a replacement for srcu_read_lock(), so upgrade the documentation to bring this out, not just for SRCU, but also for RCU-bh. Also document the fact that SRCU readers are respected on CPUs executing in user mode, idle CPUs, and even on offline CPUs. Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> --- Documentation/RCU/checklist.txt | 6 ++++++ Documentation/RCU/whatisRCU.txt | 9 +++++++-- 2 files changed, 13 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) diff --git a/Documentation/RCU/checklist.txt b/Documentation/RCU/checklist.txt index fc103d7..cdb20d4 100644 --- a/Documentation/RCU/checklist.txt +++ b/Documentation/RCU/checklist.txt @@ -310,6 +310,12 @@ over a rather long period of time, but improvements are always welcome! code under the influence of preempt_disable(), you instead need to use synchronize_irq() or synchronize_sched(). + This same limitation also applies to synchronize_rcu_bh() + and synchronize_srcu(), as well as to the asynchronous and + expedited forms of the three primitives, namely call_rcu(), + call_rcu_bh(), call_srcu(), synchronize_rcu_expedited(), + synchronize_rcu_bh_expedited(), and synchronize_srcu_expedited(). + 12. Any lock acquired by an RCU callback must be acquired elsewhere with softirq disabled, e.g., via spin_lock_irqsave(), spin_lock_bh(), etc. Failing to disable irq on a given diff --git a/Documentation/RCU/whatisRCU.txt b/Documentation/RCU/whatisRCU.txt index 69ee188..bf0f6de 100644 --- a/Documentation/RCU/whatisRCU.txt +++ b/Documentation/RCU/whatisRCU.txt @@ -873,7 +873,7 @@ d. Do you need to treat NMI handlers, hardirq handlers, and code segments with preemption disabled (whether via preempt_disable(), local_irq_save(), local_bh_disable(), or some other mechanism) as if they were explicit RCU readers? - If so, you need RCU-sched. + If so, RCU-sched is the only choice that will work for you. e. Do you need RCU grace periods to complete even in the face of softirq monopolization of one or more of the CPUs? For @@ -884,7 +884,12 @@ f. Is your workload too update-intensive for normal use of RCU, but inappropriate for other synchronization mechanisms? If so, consider SLAB_DESTROY_BY_RCU. But please be careful! -g. Otherwise, use RCU. +g. Do you need read-side critical sections that are respected + even though they are in the middle of the idle loop, during + user-mode execution, or on an offlined CPU? If so, SRCU is the + only choice that will work for you. + +h. Otherwise, use RCU. Of course, this all assumes that you have determined that RCU is in fact the right tool for your job. -- 1.7.8 -- 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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists