linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] rcu: Check the range of jiffies_till_{first,next}

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, 2 Jun 2018 20:58:48 -0700
From:   Joel Fernandes <joel@...lfernandes.org>
To:     Byungchul Park <byungchul.park@....com>
Cc:     jiangshanlai@...il.com, paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
        josh@...htriplett.org, rostedt@...dmis.org,
        mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        kernel-team@....com, kernel-team@...roid.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] rcu: Check the range of jiffies_till_{first,next}_fqs
 when setting them

On Fri, Jun 01, 2018 at 11:03:09AM +0900, Byungchul Park wrote:
> Currently, the range of jiffies_till_{first,next}_fqs are checked and
> adjusted on and on in the loop of rcu_gp_kthread on runtime.
> 
> However, it's enough to check them only when setting them, not every
> time in the loop. So make them handled on a setting time via sysfs.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Byungchul Park <byungchul.park@....com>
> ---
>  kernel/rcu/tree.c | 45 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------------
>  1 file changed, 32 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/kernel/rcu/tree.c b/kernel/rcu/tree.c
> index 4e96761..eb54d7d 100644
> --- a/kernel/rcu/tree.c
> +++ b/kernel/rcu/tree.c
> @@ -518,8 +518,38 @@ void rcu_all_qs(void)
>  static ulong jiffies_till_next_fqs = ULONG_MAX;
>  static bool rcu_kick_kthreads;
>  
> -module_param(jiffies_till_first_fqs, ulong, 0644);
> -module_param(jiffies_till_next_fqs, ulong, 0644);
> +static int param_set_first_fqs_jiffies(const char *val, const struct kernel_param *kp)
> +{
> +	ulong j;
> +	int ret = kstrtoul(val, 0, &j);
> +
> +	if (!ret)
> +		WRITE_ONCE(*(ulong *)kp->arg, (j > HZ) ? HZ : j);
> +	return ret;
> +}
> +
> +static int param_set_next_fqs_jiffies(const char *val, const struct kernel_param *kp)
> +{
> +	ulong j;
> +	int ret = kstrtoul(val, 0, &j);
> +
> +	if (!ret)
> +		WRITE_ONCE(*(ulong *)kp->arg, (j > HZ) ? HZ : (j ?: 1));
> +	return ret;
> +}

Reviewed-by: Joel Fernandes (Google) <joel@...lfernandes.org>

Also, can we not combine the 2 param_set_ handlers as well?

Only thing we would be giving up is that jiffies_till_first_fqs = 0 wouldn't
be allowed (if we go with the param_set_next handler to be the common one)
but don't think that's a useful/valid usecase since jiffies_till_first_fqs is
set to a sane non-0 value anyway at boot up because of rcu_init_geometry
anyway.. Thoughts?

If you agree, the below patch could be applied on top of rcu/dev (tested on
rcu/dev), it saves another 20 lines.

thanks,

- Joel

---8<-----------------------

From: "Joel Fernandes (Google)" <joel@...lfernandes.org>
Date: Sat, 2 Jun 2018 20:47:06 -0700
Subject: [PATCH] rcu: Use common handler for setting
 jiffies_till_{first,next}_fqs

Recently the checking of jiffies_till_{first,next}_fqs during forcing of
quiescent states was changed to be done whenever the parameters are set.

Looking at how jiffies_till_first_fqs is used on my system, I noticed a
value of 0 for it doesn't make much sense and is infact set to a non-0
value at boot up. In this case, we can combine the module_param handlers
for setting both these and keep code size small. This patch attempts it.

Signed-off-by: Joel Fernandes (Google) <joel@...lfernandes.org>
---
 kernel/rcu/tree.c | 25 +++++--------------------
 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 20 deletions(-)

diff --git a/kernel/rcu/tree.c b/kernel/rcu/tree.c
index deb2508be923..6550040f8d46 100644
--- a/kernel/rcu/tree.c
+++ b/kernel/rcu/tree.c
@@ -498,17 +498,7 @@ static ulong jiffies_till_first_fqs = ULONG_MAX;
 static ulong jiffies_till_next_fqs = ULONG_MAX;
 static bool rcu_kick_kthreads;
 
-static int param_set_first_fqs_jiffies(const char *val, const struct kernel_param *kp)
-{
-	ulong j;
-	int ret = kstrtoul(val, 0, &j);
-
-	if (!ret)
-		WRITE_ONCE(*(ulong *)kp->arg, (j > HZ) ? HZ : j);
-	return ret;
-}
-
-static int param_set_next_fqs_jiffies(const char *val, const struct kernel_param *kp)
+static int param_set_fqs_jiffies(const char *val, const struct kernel_param *kp)
 {
 	ulong j;
 	int ret = kstrtoul(val, 0, &j);
@@ -518,18 +508,13 @@ static int param_set_next_fqs_jiffies(const char *val, const struct kernel_param
 	return ret;
 }
 
-static struct kernel_param_ops first_fqs_jiffies_ops = {
-	.set = param_set_first_fqs_jiffies,
-	.get = param_get_ulong,
-};
-
-static struct kernel_param_ops next_fqs_jiffies_ops = {
-	.set = param_set_next_fqs_jiffies,
+static struct kernel_param_ops fqs_jiffies_ops = {
+	.set = param_set_fqs_jiffies,
 	.get = param_get_ulong,
 };
 
-module_param_cb(jiffies_till_first_fqs, &first_fqs_jiffies_ops, &jiffies_till_first_fqs, 0644);
-module_param_cb(jiffies_till_next_fqs, &next_fqs_jiffies_ops, &jiffies_till_next_fqs, 0644);
+module_param_cb(jiffies_till_first_fqs, &fqs_jiffies_ops, &jiffies_till_first_fqs, 0644);
+module_param_cb(jiffies_till_next_fqs, &fqs_jiffies_ops, &jiffies_till_next_fqs, 0644);
 module_param(rcu_kick_kthreads, bool, 0644);
 
 /*
-- 
2.17.1.1185.g55be947832-goog