linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 19/25] sched/vite: Handle nice updates under vtime

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, 26 Nov 2018 17:11:03 +0100
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:     Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@...nel.org>
Cc:     LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Wanpeng Li <wanpengli@...cent.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Yauheni Kaliuta <yauheni.kaliuta@...hat.com>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 19/25] sched/vite: Handle nice updates under vtime

On Mon, Nov 26, 2018 at 04:53:54PM +0100, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> > > +	irq_work_queue_on(&per_cpu(vtime_set_nice_work, cpu), cpu);
> > 
> > What happens if you already had one pending? Do we loose updates?
> 
> No, if irq_work is already pending, it doesn't requeue iff the work hasn't
> been executed yet and it's guaranteed it will see the freshest update.
> (you should trust more the code you wrote ;-)

Yeah, I do remember hoq irq_work works. What I was asking was about how
this specific handler deals with 'missing' updates.

Suppose we start with state A, set it to B and raise the IPI, then set
it to C before the interrupt happens.

That means the irq_work handler will see C and never observe B.