| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.1.10.0902121039230.15469@gandalf.stny.rr.com>
Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2009 10:43:25 -0500 (EST)
From: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...x.de>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
rt-users <linux-rt-users@...r.kernel.org>,
Carsten Emde <ce@...g.ch>,
Clark Williams <williams@...hat.com>,
rusty <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>
Subject: Re: [patch] generic-ipi: remove kmalloc, cleanup
On Thu, 12 Feb 2009, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > ok, i made it unconditional (not just a PREEMPT_RT hac) and did the
> > > cleanup below on top of it.
> > >
> > > I dont think repeat, queued IPIs are all that interesting from a
> > > performance point of view. If they are, it will all be clearly
> > > bisectable.
> >
> > Right, except I really don't like the smp_call_function_many() slow path
> > that's now the only path.
> >
> > Rusty did that I think, but he also had some idea on how to fix it, I
> > think it boiled down to sticking a count in the call data instead of the
> > full cpumask.
> >
> > So I'd rather we first fix that code, and then remove the kmalloc
> > all-together like you propose here.
>
> Right, I can't see a way around carrying that cpumask, there's just too
> much that can go wrong without it.
>
> So it put in unconditionally, how about this?
>
>
> --
> Subject: generic-smp: remove single ipi fallback for smp_call_function_many()
>
> In preparation of removing the kmalloc() calls from the generic-ipi code
> get rid of the single ipi fallback for smp_call_function_many().
>
> Because we cannot get around carrying the cpumask in the data -- imagine
> 2 such calls with different but overlapping masks -- put in a full mask.
>
> Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
> ---
> kernel/smp.c | 47 ++++++++++++++++++++++++-----------------------
> 1 files changed, 24 insertions(+), 23 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/kernel/smp.c b/kernel/smp.c
> index bbedbb7..e6658e5 100644
> --- a/kernel/smp.c
> +++ b/kernel/smp.c
> @@ -26,7 +26,7 @@ struct call_function_data {
> spinlock_t lock;
> unsigned int refs;
> struct rcu_head rcu_head;
> - unsigned long cpumask_bits[];
> + struct cpumask cpumask;
> };
>
> struct call_single_queue {
> @@ -111,13 +111,13 @@ void generic_smp_call_function_interrupt(void)
> list_for_each_entry_rcu(data, &call_function_queue, csd.list) {
> int refs;
>
> - if (!cpumask_test_cpu(cpu, to_cpumask(data->cpumask_bits)))
> + if (!cpumask_test_cpu(cpu, &data->cpumask))
> continue;
>
> data->csd.func(data->csd.info);
>
> spin_lock(&data->lock);
> - cpumask_clear_cpu(cpu, to_cpumask(data->cpumask_bits));
> + cpumask_clear_cpu(cpu, &data->cpumask);
> WARN_ON(data->refs == 0);
> data->refs--;
> refs = data->refs;
> @@ -137,8 +137,10 @@ void generic_smp_call_function_interrupt(void)
> */
> smp_wmb();
> data->csd.flags &= ~CSD_FLAG_WAIT;
> - }
> - if (data->csd.flags & CSD_FLAG_ALLOC)
> + } else if (data->csd.flags & CSD_FLAG_LOCK) {
> + smp_wmb();
> + data->csd.flags &= ~CSD_FLAG_LOCK;
> + } else if (data->csd.flags & CSD_FLAG_ALLOC)
> call_rcu(&data->rcu_head, rcu_free_call_data);
> }
> rcu_read_unlock();
> @@ -302,6 +304,8 @@ void __smp_call_function_single(int cpu, struct call_single_data *data)
> arch_send_call_function_ipi(*(maskp))
> #endif
>
> +static DEFINE_PER_CPU(struct call_function_data, cfd_data);
> +
> /**
> * smp_call_function_many(): Run a function on a set of other CPUs.
> * @mask: The set of cpus to run on (only runs on online subset).
> @@ -323,14 +327,14 @@ void smp_call_function_many(const struct cpumask *mask,
> {
> struct call_function_data *data;
> unsigned long flags;
> - int cpu, next_cpu;
> + int cpu, next_cpu, me = smp_processor_id();
>
> /* Can deadlock when called with interrupts disabled */
> WARN_ON(irqs_disabled());
>
> /* So, what's a CPU they want? Ignoring this one. */
> cpu = cpumask_first_and(mask, cpu_online_mask);
> - if (cpu == smp_processor_id())
> + if (cpu == me)
> cpu = cpumask_next_and(cpu, mask, cpu_online_mask);
> /* No online cpus? We're done. */
> if (cpu >= nr_cpu_ids)
> @@ -338,7 +342,7 @@ void smp_call_function_many(const struct cpumask *mask,
>
> /* Do we have another CPU which isn't us? */
> next_cpu = cpumask_next_and(cpu, mask, cpu_online_mask);
> - if (next_cpu == smp_processor_id())
> + if (next_cpu == me)
> next_cpu = cpumask_next_and(next_cpu, mask, cpu_online_mask);
>
> /* Fastpath: do that cpu by itself. */
> @@ -347,27 +351,24 @@ void smp_call_function_many(const struct cpumask *mask,
> return;
> }
>
> - data = kmalloc(sizeof(*data) + cpumask_size(), GFP_ATOMIC);
> - if (unlikely(!data)) {
> - /* Slow path. */
> - for_each_online_cpu(cpu) {
> - if (cpu == smp_processor_id())
> - continue;
> - if (cpumask_test_cpu(cpu, mask))
> - smp_call_function_single(cpu, func, info, wait);
> - }
> - return;
> + data = kmalloc(sizeof(*data), GFP_ATOMIC);
> + if (data)
> + data->csd.flags = CSD_FLAG_ALLOC;
> + else {
> + data = &per_cpu(cfd_data, me);
> + while (data->csd.flags & CSD_FLAG_LOCK)
> + cpu_relax();
> + data->csd.flags = CSD_FLAG_LOCK;
Wont the first CPU that runs the callback unlock this? And then we run the
risk of two back to back callers on the same CPU, having the second
caller possibly corrupt the first.
-- Steve
> }
>
> spin_lock_init(&data->lock);
> - data->csd.flags = CSD_FLAG_ALLOC;
> if (wait)
> data->csd.flags |= CSD_FLAG_WAIT;
> data->csd.func = func;
> data->csd.info = info;
> - cpumask_and(to_cpumask(data->cpumask_bits), mask, cpu_online_mask);
> - cpumask_clear_cpu(smp_processor_id(), to_cpumask(data->cpumask_bits));
> - data->refs = cpumask_weight(to_cpumask(data->cpumask_bits));
> + cpumask_and(&data->cpumask, mask, cpu_online_mask);
> + cpumask_clear_cpu(smp_processor_id(), &data->cpumask);
> + data->refs = cpumask_weight(&data->cpumask);
>
> spin_lock_irqsave(&call_function_lock, flags);
> list_add_tail_rcu(&data->csd.list, &call_function_queue);
> @@ -379,7 +380,7 @@ void smp_call_function_many(const struct cpumask *mask,
> smp_mb();
>
> /* Send a message to all CPUs in the map */
> - arch_send_call_function_ipi_mask(to_cpumask(data->cpumask_bits));
> + arch_send_call_function_ipi_mask(&data->cpumask);
>
> /* optionally wait for the CPUs to complete */
> if (wait)
>
>
>
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists