linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH, RFC, tip/core/rcu] v3 scalable classic RCU implementation

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:	Sun, 31 Aug 2008 20:18:42 +0200
From:	Manfred Spraul <manfred@...orfullife.com>
To:	paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com
CC:	Lai Jiangshan <laijs@...fujitsu.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	cl@...ux-foundation.org, mingo@...e.hu, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
	dipankar@...ibm.com, josht@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, schamp@....com,
	niv@...ibm.com, dvhltc@...ibm.com, ego@...ibm.com,
	rostedt@...dmis.org, peterz@...radead.org,
	benh@...nel.crashing.org, davem@...emloft.net, tony.luck@...el.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH, RFC, tip/core/rcu] v3 scalable classic RCU implementation

Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 31, 2008 at 07:45:02PM +0200, Manfred Spraul wrote:
>   
>> Paul E. McKenney wrote:
>>     
>>> Assuming that the ordering of processing pending irqs and marking the
>>> CPU offline in cpu_online_mask can be resolved as noted above, it should
>>> work fine -- if a CPU's bit is clear, we can safely ignore it.  The race
>>> can be resolved by checking the CPU's bit in force_quiescent_state().
>>>
>>> Or am I missing something?
>>>   
>>>       
>> Yes, that would work:
>> Rule 1: after CPU_DEAD, a cpu is gone. The cpu is quiet, rcu callbacks must 
>> be moved to other cpus, ...
>> Rule 2: if a cpu is not listed in cpu_online_mask, then it can be 
>> considered as outside a read-side critical section.
>>
>> The problem with rule 2 is that it means someone [force_quiescent_state()] 
>> must poll the cpu_online_mask and look for changes.
>> I'd really prefer a notifier. CPU_DYING is nearly the correct thing, it 
>> only has to be moved down 3 lines ;-)
>> (I want to kill the bitmaps, not add a hierarchical bitmap polling system!)
>>     
>
> But some later CPU_DYING notifier might decide that the CPU cannot be
> removed after all, which would mean bringing the CPU back.  And then
> whatever the CPU was needed for might have actually happened in the
> meantime, which does not sound good to me...
>   
CPU_DYING must not fail, the current code doesn't support that.

--
    Manfred
--
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/