linux-kernel - Re: [patch] cpufreq: mark cpufreq_tsc() as core_initcall

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: <20061119205516.GA117@oleg>
Date:	Sun, 19 Nov 2006 23:55:16 +0300
From:	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...sign.ru>
To:	Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>
Cc:	Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@...cle.com>,
	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ibm.com>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...l.org>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...esys.com>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	john stultz <johnstul@...ibm.com>,
	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
	Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>, Andi Kleen <ak@...e.de>,
	manfred@...orfullife.com
Subject: Re: [patch] cpufreq: mark cpufreq_tsc() as core_initcall_sync

On 11/19, Alan Stern wrote:
>
> On Sun, 19 Nov 2006, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> 
> > 	int xxx_read_lock(struct xxx_struct *sp)
> > 	{
> > 		int idx;
> > 
> > 		idx = sp->completed & 0x1;
> > 		atomic_inc(sp->ctr + idx);
> > 		smp_mb__after_atomic_inc();
> > 
> > 		return idx;
> > 	}
> > 
> > 	void xxx_read_unlock(struct xxx_struct *sp, int idx)
> > 	{
> > 		if (atomic_dec_and_test(sp->ctr + idx))
> > 			wake_up(&sp->wq);
> > 	}
> > 
> > 	void synchronize_xxx(struct xxx_struct *sp)
> > 	{
> > 		wait_queue_t wait;
> > 		int idx;
> > 
> > 		init_wait(&wait);
> > 		mutex_lock(&sp->mutex);
> > 
> > 		idx = sp->completed++ & 0x1;
> > 
> > 		for (;;) {
> > 			prepare_to_wait(&sp->wq, &wait, TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE);
> > 
> > 			if (!atomic_add_unless(sp->ctr + idx, -1, 1))
> > 				break;
> > 
> > 			schedule();
> > 			atomic_inc(sp->ctr + idx);
> > 		}
> > 		finish_wait(&sp->wq, &wait);
> > 
> > 		mutex_unlock(&sp->mutex);
> > 	}
> > 
> > Very simple. Note that synchronize_xxx() is O(1), doesn't poll, and could
> > be optimized further.
> 
> What happens if synchronize_xxx manages to execute inbetween 
> xxx_read_lock's
> 
>  		idx = sp->completed & 0x1;
>  		atomic_inc(sp->ctr + idx);
> 
> statements?

Oops. I forgot about explicit mb() before sp->completed++ in synchronize_xxx().

So synchronize_xxx() should do

	smp_mb();
	idx = sp->completed++ & 0x1;

	for (;;) { ... }

>               You see, there's no way around using synchronize_sched().

With this change I think we are safe.

If synchronize_xxx() increments ->completed in between, the caller of
xxx_read_lock() will see all memory ops (started before synchronize_xxx())
completed. It is ok that synchronize_xxx() returns immediately.

Thanks!

Oleg.

-
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/