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: Sun, 2 Sep 2012 03:47:07 -0700 From: Josh Triplett <josh@...htriplett.org> To: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, mingo@...e.hu, laijs@...fujitsu.com, dipankar@...ibm.com, akpm@...ux-foundation.org, mathieu.desnoyers@...ymtl.ca, 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 Subject: Re: [PATCH tip/core/rcu 12/23] rcu: Prevent force_quiescent_state() memory contention On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 11:18:27AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > --- a/kernel/rcutree.c > +++ b/kernel/rcutree.c [...] > @@ -1824,16 +1825,35 @@ static void force_qs_rnp(struct rcu_state *rsp, int (*f)(struct rcu_data *)) > static void force_quiescent_state(struct rcu_state *rsp) > { > unsigned long flags; > - struct rcu_node *rnp = rcu_get_root(rsp); > + bool ret; > + struct rcu_node *rnp; > + struct rcu_node *rnp_old = NULL; > + > + /* Funnel through hierarchy to reduce memory contention. */ > + rnp = per_cpu_ptr(rsp->rda, raw_smp_processor_id())->mynode; What makes this use of raw_smp_processor_id() safe? (And, could you document the answer here?) > + for (; rnp != NULL; rnp = rnp->parent) { > + ret = (ACCESS_ONCE(rsp->gp_flags) & RCU_GP_FLAG_FQS) || > + !raw_spin_trylock(&rnp->fqslock); So, the root lock will still get trylocked by one CPU per second-level tree node, just not by every CPU? > @@ -2721,10 +2741,14 @@ static void __init rcu_init_levelspread(struct rcu_state *rsp) > static void __init rcu_init_one(struct rcu_state *rsp, > struct rcu_data __percpu *rda) > { > - static char *buf[] = { "rcu_node_level_0", > - "rcu_node_level_1", > - "rcu_node_level_2", > - "rcu_node_level_3" }; /* Match MAX_RCU_LVLS */ > + static char *buf[] = { "rcu_node_0", > + "rcu_node_1", > + "rcu_node_2", > + "rcu_node_3" }; /* Match MAX_RCU_LVLS */ Why rename these? - Josh Triplett -- 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