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:   Fri, 11 May 2018 09:27:40 -0700
From:   Joel Fernandes <joel@...lfernandes.org>
To:     "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc:     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, peterz@...radead.org,
        rostedt@...dmis.org, dhowells@...hat.com, edumazet@...gle.com,
        fweisbec@...il.com, oleg@...hat.com, torvalds@...ux-foundation.org,
        npiggin@...il.com
Subject: Re: [tip/core/rcu, 05/21] rcu: Make rcu_gp_cleanup() more accurately
 predict need for new GP

On Fri, May 11, 2018 at 09:24:43AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 10:37:54AM -0700, Joel Fernandes wrote:
> > On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 06:15:46AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > [...] 
> > > > Also in rcu_future_gp_cleanup, we call:
> > > > 	trace_rcu_future_gp(rnp, rdp, c,
> > > > 			    needmore ? TPS("CleanupMore") : TPS("Cleanup"));
> > > > For this case, in the final trace event record, rnp->completed and c will be
> > > > the same, since c is set to rnp->completed before calling
> > > > trace_rcu_future_gp. I was thinking they should be different, do you expect
> > > > them to be the same?
> > > 
> > > Hmmm...  That does look a bit inconsistent.  And it currently uses
> > > rnp->gp_seq instead of rnp->gp_seq_needed despite having the same
> > > "CleanupMore" name.
> > > 
> > > Looks like a review of the calls to trace_rcu_this_gp() is in order.
> > 
> > I see you changed trace_rcu_future_gp to use trace_rcu_this_gp in 15/21.. I
> > am not sure if the concern is still valid then since you seem to be correctly
> > getting the future GP in those cases, except for the naming which I suggest
> > be changed from 'c' to 'future_gp' just for clarity / self-documenting code.
> 
> Indeed, "c" for "->completed" is completely outdated.  ;-)
> 
> Would you be willing to send a patch providing a better name?

Yes for sure, I'll do it soon, and will also review the gp numbers.

thanks,

- Joel

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ