linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 tip/core/rcu 1/9] rcu: Add call_rcu

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:	Sun, 10 Aug 2014 17:00:05 +0200
From:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, mingo@...nel.org,
	laijs@...fujitsu.com, dipankar@...ibm.com,
	akpm@...ux-foundation.org, mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com,
	josh@...htriplett.org, tglx@...utronix.de, rostedt@...dmis.org,
	dhowells@...hat.com, edumazet@...gle.com, dvhart@...ux.intel.com,
	fweisbec@...il.com, oleg@...hat.com, bobby.prani@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 tip/core/rcu 1/9] rcu: Add call_rcu_tasks()

On Sat, Aug 09, 2014 at 06:38:29PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 09, 2014 at 08:33:55PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Fri, Aug 08, 2014 at 01:58:26PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > 
> > > > And on that, you probably should change rcu_sched_rq() to read:
> > > > 
> > > > 	this_cpu_inc(rcu_sched_data.passed_quiesce);
> > > > 
> > > > That avoids touching the per-cpu data offset.
> > > 
> > > Hmmm...  Interrupts are disabled,
> > 
> > No they are not, __schedule()->rcu_note_context_switch()->rcu_sched_qs()
> > is only called with preemption disabled.
> > 
> > We only disable IRQs later, where we take the rq->lock.
> 
> You want me not to disable irqs before invoking rcu_preempt_qs() from
> rcu_preempt_note_context_switch(), I get that.  But right now, they
> really are disabled courtesy of the local_irq_save() before the call
> to rcu_preempt_qs() from rcu_preempt_note_context_switch().

Ah, confusion there, I said rcu_sched_qs(), you're talking about
rcu_preempt_qs().

Yes the call to rcu_preempt_qs() is unconditionally wrapped in IRQ
disable.

> > void rcu_sched_qs(int cpu)
> > {
> > 	if (trace_rcu_grace_period_enabled()) {
> > 		if (!__this_cpu_read(rcu_sched_data.passed_quiesce))
> > 			trace_rcu_grace_period(...);
> > 	}
> > 	__this_cpu_write(rcu_sched_data.passed_quiesce, 1);
> > }
> > 
> > Would further avoid emitting the conditional in the normal case where
> > the tracepoint is inactive.
> 
> It might be better to avoid storing to rcu_sched_data.passed_quiesce when
> it is already 1, though the difference would be quite hard to measure.
> In that case, this would work nicely:
> 
> static void rcu_preempt_qs(int cpu)
> {
> 	if (rdp->passed_quiesce == 0) {
> 		trace_rcu_grace_period(TPS("rcu_preempt"), rdp->gpnum, TPS("cpuqs"));
> 	> 	__this_cpu_write(rcu_sched_data.passed_quiesce, 1);
> 	}
> 	current->rcu_read_unlock_special &= ~RCU_READ_UNLOCK_NEED_QS;
> }

Yes, that's a consideration, fair enough. Again note the confusion
between sched/preempt. But yes, both can use this 'cleanup'.

Content of type "application/pgp-signature" skipped