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:	Sat, 14 Jun 2014 04:26:39 -0700
From:	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:	Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
Cc:	Josh Triplett <josh@...htriplett.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
	Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] rcu: Only pin GP kthread when full dynticks is actually
 used

On Fri, Jun 13, 2014 at 10:06:06PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 14, 2014 at 01:39:36AM +0200, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> > On Fri, Jun 13, 2014 at 04:27:15PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:

[ . . . ]

> > > If I was to extend rcu_needs_cpu(), I would add a flag and another counter
> > > to the rcu_data structure.  If rcu_needs_cpu() saw the flag set and the
> > > counter equal to the current ->completed value, it would return true.
> > > 
> > > I already have the rcu_kick_nohz_cpu() in rcu_implicit_dynticks_qs(),
> > > so it is just a matter of also setting the flag and copying ->completed
> > > to the new counter at that point.  I currently get to this point if the
> > > CPU has managed to run for more than one jiffy without hitting either
> > > idle or userspace execution.  Fair enough?
> > 
> > Perfect for me!
> 
> One complication...  So if the grace period has gone on for a long time,
> and you are returning to kernel mode, RCU will need the scheduling-clock
> tick.  However, in that very same situation, if you are returning to
> idle or to NO_HZ_FULL userspace execution, RCU does -not- need the
> scheduling-clock tick set.
> 
> One way I could do this is to have rcu_needs_cpu() return three values:
> Zero for RCU doesn't need a scheduling-clock tick for any reason,
> one if RCU needs a scheduling-clock tick only if returning to kernel
> mode, and two if RCU unconditionally needs the scheduling-clock tick.
> Would that work, or is there a better approach?

You know, it just feels like RCU -should- be able to solve this
internally.  So if determining that you are returning to kernel mode is
at all inconvenient, give me a couple days to think this through.

							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/

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ