linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] ksoftirqd: Enable IRQs and call cond

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:	Wed, 21 Jan 2015 02:27:26 -0800
From:	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Cc:	Calvin Owens <calvinowens@...com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kernel-team@...com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ksoftirqd: Enable IRQs and call cond_resched() before
 poking RCU

On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 10:30:07AM +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Tue, 20 Jan 2015, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 02:21:51PM +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > > The whole rcu_note_context_switch() in run_ksoftirqd() is silly.
> > > 
> > >     cond_resched()
> > > 	__preempt_count_add(PREEMPT_ACTIVE);
> > > 
> > > 	__schedule();
> > > 	     preempt_disable();
> > > 	     rcu_note_context_switch();
> > > 	     ....
> > > 
> > > 	__preempt_count_sub(PREEMPT_ACTIVE);
> > 
> > I agree that if should_resched() returns true as assumed above, then there
> > is no point to invoking rcu_note_context_switch().  However, the case that
> > this code applies to is when should_resched() returns false, but RCU is
> > waiting for a quiescent state from the current CPU.  In that case,
> > cond_resched() won't do anything for RCU, and we do need the
> > rcu_note_context_switch().
> 
> So this should be:
> 
>    if (!cond_resched()) {
	preempt_disable();
>       rcu_note_context_switch();
	preempt_enable();
     }
> 
> Hmm?

Going forward, yes, and cond_resched_rcu_qs() in fact does something
very similar.  For backporting, which is what this patch is for, we are
preserving the same double-quiescent-state behavior that existed earlier,
meaning minimal perturbation of old releases.

Seem reasonable, or do you really feel strongly about pushing this
optimization into -stable?

> > Of course, it would be better to avoid the extra RCU work in the common
> > case where cond_resched() does inovke the scheduler.  And that is the
> > point of the following patch, which uses cond_resched_rcu_qs().
> > However, this use of cond_resched_rcu_qs() doesn't work in older
> > kernels.  So Calvin's patch is for backporting, and the follow-up
> > patch for future kernels.
> 
> I see.

							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/