linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH RFC 6/9] RCU priority boosting for preemptible RCU

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20071005140725.GD22034@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date:	Fri, 5 Oct 2007 07:07:25 -0700
From:	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:	Gautham R Shenoy <ego@...ibm.com>
Cc:	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	linux-rt-users <linux-rt-users@...r.kernel.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
	dipankar@...ibm.com, josht@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, tytso@...ibm.com,
	dvhltc@...ibm.com, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl, bunk@...nel.org, oleg@...sign.ru
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 6/9] RCU priority boosting for preemptible RCU

On Fri, Oct 05, 2007 at 06:51:14PM +0530, Gautham R Shenoy wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 05, 2007 at 08:24:21AM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > On Fri, 5 Oct 2007, Gautham R Shenoy wrote:
> > > On Mon, Sep 10, 2007 at 11:39:01AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > >
> > > [snip]
> > >
> > > > +
> > > > +/*
> > > > + * Return the list from which to boost target tasks.
> > > > + * May only be invoked by the booster task, so guaranteed to
> > > > + * already be initialized.  Use rcu_boost_dat element least recently
> > > > + * the destination for task blocking in RCU read-side critical sections.
> > > > + */
> > > > +static inline struct rcu_boost_dat *rcu_rbd_boosting(int cpu)
> > > > +{
> > > > +	int idx = (rcu_boost_idx + 1) & (RCU_BOOST_ELEMENTS - 1);
> > >
> > > Why is this masking required? When we increment
> > > the rcu_boost_idx in rcu_booster, we do perform a modulo operation
> > > to ensure that it wraps around RCU_BOOST_ELEMENTS.
> > 
> > Because we are not masking rcu_boost_idx, we are masking
> >  (rcu_boost_idx + 1) which may extend the bounderies of
> > RCU_BOOST_ELEMENTS.
> 
> Thanks! 
> 
> But I'm still trying to understand why the (increment + masking)
> is required at all.
> 
> The thread(producer) that requires boosting is added to the element
> with index rcu_boost_idx.
> 
> The booster thread(consumer) increments the rcu_boost_idx to 
> (rcu_boost_idx + 1) % RCU_BOOST_ELEMENTS, before it fetches the least
> recently used rcu_boot_dat elements and boost the eligible tasks queued
> in that element.
> 
> So, can't we just return per_cpu(rcu_boost_dat, cpu)[rcu_boost_idx] from
> rcu_rbd_boosting(cpu) ? Isn't that already the least recently used
> element?

Good catch -- we need to advance the index -after- boosting, so that
new sleeping tasks are not immediately dropped on the to-be-boosted
list.  Will fix!

(Non-fatal -- but means that the algorithm is effectively only using
three elements of the four-element array, so does need to be fixed.)

						Thanx, Paul
-
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/