linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH tip/core/rcu 10/10] rcu: Account for rcu_all_qs() in 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:   Sat, 24 Feb 2018 15:18:16 -0500
From:   Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To:     "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, mingo@...nel.org,
        jiangshanlai@...il.com, dipankar@...ibm.com,
        akpm@...ux-foundation.org, mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com,
        josh@...htriplett.org, tglx@...utronix.de, dhowells@...hat.com,
        edumazet@...gle.com, fweisbec@...il.com, oleg@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH tip/core/rcu 10/10] rcu: Account for rcu_all_qs() in
 cond_resched()

On Sat, 2 Dec 2017 04:22:20 -0800
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
 
> Because there are a few key places within RCU and rcutorture that need it.
> Without it, there are scenarios where the new cond_resched() never gets
> activated, and thus doesn't take effect.
> 
> The key point is that with this series in place, it should not be necessary
> to use cond_resched_rcu_qs() outside of kernel/rcu and kernel/torture.c.
> Which is a valuable step forward, right?

I'm guessing the tracepoint benchmark is another situation. It's only
existence is to benchmark tracepoints and should not be enabled on any
production system. Thus, I think reverting patch 6 (the one removing it
from the benchmark code) is the proper solution.

-- Steve