linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH 6/6] stop_machine: optimize stop_work

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, 29 Jun 2015 10:56:46 +0200
From:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
Cc:	paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, tj@...nel.org, mingo@...hat.com,
	der.herr@...r.at, dave@...olabs.net, riel@...hat.com,
	viro@...IV.linux.org.uk, torvalds@...ux-foundation.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 6/6] stop_machine: optimize stop_work_alloc()

On Fri, Jun 26, 2015 at 04:15:26AM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> wait_event()/wake_up_all() in stop_work_alloc/stop_work_free logic
> is very suboptimal because of non-exclusive wakeups. So we add the
> wait_queue_func_t alloc_wake() helper which wakes the waiter up only
> a) if it actually waits for a stop_work in the "freed" cpumask, and
> b) only after we already set ->stop_owner = waiter.
> 
> So if 2 stop_machine()'s race with each other, the loser will likely
> call schedule() only once and we will have a single wakeup.

So I think I can beat lockdep into submission (ugly but still) do we
want to use an actual per-cpu mutex instead?
--
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/