linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] move put_task_struct() reaping into a thread [Re: 2.6.18-rt1]

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]

Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0609211417470.8638@frodo.shire>
Date:	Thu, 21 Sep 2006 14:23:19 +0200 (CEST)
From:	Esben Nielsen <nielsen.esben@...glemail.com>
To:	Bill Huey <billh@...ppy.monkey.org>
cc:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	John Stultz <johnstul@...ibm.com>,
	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ibm.com>,
	Dipankar Sarma <dipankar@...ibm.com>,
	Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>,
	Esben Nielsen <simlo@...s.au.dk>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] move put_task_struct() reaping into a thread [Re:
 2.6.18-rt1]




On Thu, 21 Sep 2006, Bill Huey wrote:

> On Thu, Sep 21, 2006 at 09:56:33AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>> * Bill Huey <billh@...ppy.monkey.org> wrote:
>>
>>> [...] If the upstream kernel used RCU function in a task allocation or
>>> task struct reading in the first place then call_rcu() would be a
>>> clear choice. However, I didn't see it used in that way (I could be
>>> wrong) [...]
>>
>> it was RCU-ified briefly but then it was further improved to direct
>> freeing, because upstream _can_ free it directly.
>
> Unfortunately, this is a problem with -rt patch and the lock ordering
> in this system when you have to call a memory allocator within an atomic
> critical section. I fully accept this as part of what goes into making a
> kernel preemptive and I'm ok with it. Not many folks know about the
> special case locking rules in the -rt kernel so this might be new to
> various folks.
>
> If you're looking for validation of this technique from me and an ego
> stroking, then you have it from me. :)
>
> Fortunately, it's in a non-critical place so this should *not* be too
> much of a problem, but I've already encountered oddies trying to
> allocate a pool of entities for populating a free list under an atomic
> critical section of some sort for some code I've been writing. This is
> a significant problem with kernel coding in -rt, but I can't say what
> the general solution is other than making the memory allocators
> non-preemptible by reverting the locks back to raw spinlocks, etc...
> using lock-break, who knows. I'm ok with the current scenario, but this
> could eventually be a larger problem.
>

The whole point is to defer those frees to a task. In -rt call_rcu() is 
abused to do that in the case of put_task_struct(). But it is abuse since 
call_rcu() is much more resourcefull than simply defering to a task.

Paul's idea behind de-RCU'ing put_task_struct() is mostly performance and 
partly readability because the extra RCU protection isn't needed.

So the answer is:
Make a general softirq to which free's can be defered from atomic regions, 
don't abuse call_rcu().

Esben

> bill
>
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/