linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/7] locking/rwsem: don't resched at the end of optimistic spinning

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, 04 Aug 2014 14:12:34 -0700
From:	Jason Low <jason.low2@...com>
To:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:	Waiman Long <waiman.long@...com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-api@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, Davidlohr Bueso <davidlohr@...com>,
	Scott J Norton <scott.norton@...com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/7] locking/rwsem: don't resched at the end of
 optimistic spinning

On Mon, 2014-08-04 at 22:48 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 04, 2014 at 02:36:35PM -0400, Waiman Long wrote:
> > On 08/04/2014 03:55 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > >On Sun, Aug 03, 2014 at 10:36:16PM -0400, Waiman Long wrote:
> > >>For a fully preemptive kernel, a call to preempt_enable() could
> > >>potentially trigger a task rescheduling event. In the case of rwsem
> > >>optimistic spinning, the task has either gotten the lock or is going
> > >>to sleep soon. So there is no point to do rescheduling here.
> > >Uh what? Why shouldn't we preempt if we've gotten the lock? What if a
> > >FIFO task just woke up?
> > 
> > I didn't mean that we shouldn't preempt if there is a higher priority task.
> > I am sure that there will be other preemption points along the way that a
> > higher priority task can take over the CPU. I just want to say that doing it
> > here may not be the best place especially if the task is going to sleep
> > soon.
> > 
> > If you think this patch does not make sense, I can remove it as other
> > patches in the set has no dependency on this one.
> 
> Yeah, its actively harmful, you delay preemption by an unspecified
> amount of time in case of the spin-acquire. We've had such bugs in -rt
> and they're not fun.
> 
> Basically the only time you should use no_resched is if the very next
> statement is schedule().

Right, we actually added an extra resched check at essentially the same
point in the mutex spinning code  :)

--
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/