linux-kernel - Re: [RFC][PATCH tip/sched/core] sched/rt: Simplify the IPI rt balancing logic

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, 24 Apr 2017 10:57:00 +0200
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:     Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Cc:     LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
        Clark Williams <williams@...hat.com>,
        Daniel Bristot de Oliveira <bristot@...hat.com>,
        John Kacur <jkacur@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH tip/sched/core] sched/rt: Simplify the IPI rt
 balancing logic

On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 10:49:29PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> +#ifdef HAVE_RT_PUSH_IPI
> +	/*
> +	 * For IPI pull requests, loop across the rto_mask.
> +	 */
> +	struct irq_work rto_push_work;
> +	raw_spinlock_t rto_lock;
> +	/* These atomics are updated outside of a lock */
> +	atomic_t rto_loop_next;
> +	atomic_t rto_loop_start;
> +	/* These are only updated and read withn rto_lock */
> +	int rto_loop;
> +	int rto_cpu;
> +#endif

Don't you think it would make sense to place the rto_lock near the
variables it protects? And if those atomics are supposed to increase
performance, do they want to share the same cacheline with the lock?