linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 01/45] Create a dynamically sized pool of threads for doing very slow work items [ver #41]

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:	Fri, 19 Dec 2008 10:52:52 -0600
From:	"Serge E. Hallyn" <serue@...ibm.com>
To:	David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>
Cc:	trond.myklebust@....uio.no, viro@...IV.linux.org.uk,
	nfsv4@...ux-nfs.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 01/45] Create a dynamically sized pool of threads for
	doing very slow work items [ver #41]

Quoting David Howells (dhowells@...hat.com):
> David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com> wrote:
> 
> > I guess I need to stick a comment in slow_work_enqueue() to detail this,
> > though the comments in slow_work_execute() do talk about it.
> 
> How about this:
> 
> diff --git a/kernel/slow-work.c b/kernel/slow-work.c
> index f638f36..adf9b78 100644
> --- a/kernel/slow-work.c
> +++ b/kernel/slow-work.c
> @@ -195,12 +195,32 @@ int slow_work_enqueue(struct slow_work *work)
>  	BUG_ON(!work->ops);
>  	BUG_ON(!work->ops->get_ref);
> 
> +	/* when honouring an enqueue request, we only promise that we will run
> +	 * the work function in the future; we do not promise to run it once
> +	 * per enqueue request

That, there, is precisely what i needed to hear :)

> +	 * we use the PENDING bit to merge together repeat requests without
> +	 * having to disable IRQs and take the spinlock, whilst still
> +	 * maintaining our promise
> +	 */
>  	if (!test_and_set_bit_lock(SLOW_WORK_PENDING, &work->flags)) {
>  		spin_lock_irqsave(&slow_work_queue_lock, flags);
> 
> +		/* we promise that we will not attempt to execute the work
> +		 * function in more than one thread simultaneously
> +		 *
> +		 * this, however, leaves us with a problem if we're asked to
> +		 * enqueue the work whilst someone is executing the work
> +		 * function as simply queueing the work immediately means that
> +		 * another thread may try executing it whilst it is already
> +		 * under execution
> +		 *
> +		 * to deal with this, we set the ENQ_DEFERRED bit instead of
> +		 * enqueueing, and the thread currently executing the work
> +		 * function will enqueue the work item when the work function
> +		 * returns and it has cleared the EXECUTING bit
> +		 */
>  		if (test_bit(SLOW_WORK_EXECUTING, &work->flags)) {
> -			/* can't queue lest we cause multiple threads to try
> -			 * executing this item, so defer for later */
>  			set_bit(SLOW_WORK_ENQ_DEFERRED, &work->flags);
>  		} else {
>  			if (work->ops->get_ref(work) < 0)
> 
> David

thanks,
-serge
--
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/