netdev - Re: [RFC PATCH 0/2] net: threadable napi poll loop

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:	Wed, 11 May 2016 15:13:49 +0200
From:	Hannes Frederic Sowa <hannes@...essinduktion.org>
To:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
Cc:	Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
	Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
	netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
	Jiri Pirko <jiri@...lanox.com>,
	Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
	Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...mgrid.com>,
	Alexander Duyck <aduyck@...antis.com>,
	Tom Herbert <tom@...bertland.com>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/2] net: threadable napi poll loop

On 11.05.2016 08:55, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, May 10, 2016 at 03:51:37PM -0700, Eric Dumazet wrote:
>> diff --git a/kernel/softirq.c b/kernel/softirq.c
>> index 17caf4b63342..22463217e3cf 100644
>> --- a/kernel/softirq.c
>> +++ b/kernel/softirq.c
>> @@ -56,6 +56,7 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL(irq_stat);
>>  static struct softirq_action softirq_vec[NR_SOFTIRQS] __cacheline_aligned_in_smp;
>>  
>>  DEFINE_PER_CPU(struct task_struct *, ksoftirqd);
>> +DEFINE_PER_CPU(bool, ksoftirqd_scheduled);
>>  
>>  const char * const softirq_to_name[NR_SOFTIRQS] = {
>>  	"HI", "TIMER", "NET_TX", "NET_RX", "BLOCK", "BLOCK_IOPOLL",
>> @@ -73,8 +74,10 @@ static void wakeup_softirqd(void)
>>  	/* Interrupts are disabled: no need to stop preemption */
>>  	struct task_struct *tsk = __this_cpu_read(ksoftirqd);
>>  
>> -	if (tsk && tsk->state != TASK_RUNNING)
>> +	if (tsk && tsk->state != TASK_RUNNING) {
>> +		__this_cpu_write(ksoftirqd_scheduled, true);
>>  		wake_up_process(tsk);
> 
> Since we're already looking at tsk->state, and the wake_up_process()
> ensures the thing becomes TASK_RUNNING, you could add:
> 
> static inline bool ksoftirqd_running(void)
> {
> 	return __this_cpu_read(ksoftirqd)->state == TASK_RUNNING;
> }

This looks racy to me as the ksoftirqd could be in the progress to stop
and we would miss another softirq invocation.

Thanks,
Hannes