linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH, RFC] v7 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, 12 Oct 2008 17:52:56 +0200
From:	Manfred Spraul <manfred@...orfullife.com>
To:	paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com
CC:	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, laijs@...fujitsu.com,
	rostedt@...dmis.org, peterz@...radead.org, penberg@...helsinki.fi,
	andi@...stfloor.org, tglx@...utronix.de
Subject: Re: [PATCH, RFC] v7 scalable classic RCU implementation

Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> +/*
> + * If the specified CPU is offline, tell the caller that it is in
> + * a quiescent state.  Otherwise, whack it with a reschedule IPI.
> + * Grace periods can end up waiting on an offline CPU when that
> + * CPU is in the process of coming online -- it will be added to the
> + * rcu_node bitmasks before it actually makes it online.  Because this
> + * race is quite rare, we check for it after detecting that the grace
> + * period has been delayed rather than checking each and every CPU
> + * each and every time we start a new grace period.
> + */
What about using CPU_DYING and CPU_STARTING?

Then this race wouldn't exist anymore.
> +static void force_quiescent_state(struct rcu_state *rsp, int relaxed)
> +{
> + [snip]
> +       case RCU_FORCE_QS:
> +
> +               /* Check dyntick-idle state, send IPI to laggarts. */
> +               if (rcu_process_dyntick(rsp, 
> dyntick_recall_completed(rsp),
> +                                       rcu_implicit_dynticks_qs))
> +                       goto unlock_ret;
> +
> +               /* Leave state in case more forcing is required. */
> +
> +               break;
Hmm - your code must loop multiple times over the cpus.
I've use a different approach: More forcing is only required for a nohz 
cpu when it was hit within a long-running interrupt.
Thus I've added a '->kick_poller' flag, rcu_irq_exit() reports back when 
the long-running interrupt completes. Never more than one loop over the 
outstanding cpus is required.

--
    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/