linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH -rt 5/5] cpu-hotplug: cpu

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:	Tue, 10 Jun 2008 17:51:18 +0200
From:	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
To:	paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
	Clark Williams <williams@...hat.com>,
	Gregory Haskins <ghaskins@...ell.com>,
	Gautham R Shenoy <ego@...ibm.com>,
	Pekka Enberg <penberg@...helsinki.fi>,
	Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH -rt 5/5] cpu-hotplug: cpu_down vs preempt-rt

On Tue, 2008-06-10 at 08:33 -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 10, 2008 at 01:13:04PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > idle_task_exit() calls mmdrop() from the idle thread, but in PREEMPT_RT all the
> > allocator locks are sleeping locks - for obvious reasons scheduling away the
> > idle thread gives some curious problems.
> > 
> > Solve this by pushing the mmdrop() into an RCU callback, however we can't use
> > RCU because the CPU is already down and all the local RCU state has been
> > destroyed.
> > 
> > Therefore create a new call_rcu() variant that enqueues the callback on an
> > online cpu.
> 
> I am a bit nervous about the non-determinism, but on the other hand
> CPU online/offline events can only happen so often due to the locking.
> 
> So...
> 
> Reviewed-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>

Thanks!

Yesterday you suggested using rcu_cpu_online_map and fliplock to avoid
the loop here:

> > +void fastcall call_rcu_preempt_online(struct rcu_head *head,
> > +		void (*func)(struct rcu_head *rcu))
> > +{
> > +	struct rcu_data *rdp;
> > +	unsigned long flags;
> > +	int cpu;
> > +
> > +	head->func = func;
> > +	head->next = NULL;
> > +again:
> > +	cpu = first_cpu(cpu_online_map);
> > +	rdp = RCU_DATA_CPU(cpu);
> > +
> > +	spin_lock_irqsave(&rdp->lock, flags);
> > +	if (unlikely(!cpu_online(cpu))) {
> > +		/*
> > +		 * cpu is removed from the online map before rcu_offline_cpu
> > +		 * is called.
> > +		 */
> > +		spin_unlock_irqrestore(&rdp->lock, flags);
> > +		goto again;
> > +	}
> > +
> > +	*rdp->nexttail = head;
> > +	rdp->nexttail = &head->next;
> > +	spin_unlock_irqrestore(&rdp->lock, flags);
> > +
> > +}

But then the code would look like:

  spin_lock_irqsave(&rcu_ctrlblk.fliplock, flags);
  cpu = first_cpu(rcu_cpu_online_map);
  rdp = RCU_DATA_CPU(cpu);
  spin_lock(&rdp->lock);

creating a nesting between these two locks, where I could not find one.

Do you still prefer I look into changing it into such a form, or are you
sufficiently non-caring that the current code can stand? :-)

--
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/