linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] sched: Have do_idle() call __schedule() without enabling preemption

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Thu, 13 Apr 2017 10:54:35 -0400
From:   Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:     LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] sched: Have do_idle() call __schedule() without
 enabling preemption

On Thu, 13 Apr 2017 16:38:07 +0200
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:

> On Thu, Apr 13, 2017 at 09:48:40AM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > On Thu, 13 Apr 2017 10:44:53 +0200
> > Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
> >   
> > > On Wed, Apr 12, 2017 at 02:27:44PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:  
> > > > + * schedule_idle() is similar to schedule_preempt_disable() except
> > > > + * that it never enables preemption.    
> > > 
> > > That's not right. The primary distinction is that it doesn't call
> > > sched_submit_work().  
> > 
> > That has nothing to do with fixing synchronize_rcu_tasks(), which is
> > the entire point of my patch, thus it is *not* the primary distinction.  
> 
> It is. The only reason you _can_ avoid that preemption window is by not
> doing sched_submit_work().

We are talking apples and oranges here. It's a distinction of the
generic call to schedule_preempt_disable() and only one instance of the
callers can actually run that. But it is not the idle case, in which
case it is a nop. But we are now bike shedding the issue.

> 
> The moment you need to call that, the preemption window comes back.

I'll update my change log and comment and repost.

Thanks,

-- Steve