linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH -v4] generic-ipi: remove kmalloc()

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]

Message-Id: <1234906689.4744.241.camel@laptop>
Date:	Tue, 17 Feb 2009 22:38:09 +0100
From:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:	paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com
Cc:	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Nick Piggin <npiggin@...e.de>,
	Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@...cle.com>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>,
	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH -v4] generic-ipi: remove kmalloc()

On Tue, 2009-02-17 at 13:30 -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:

> > +static void csd_complete(struct call_single_data *data)
> > +{
> > +	/*
> > +	 * Serialize stores to data with the flag clear and wakeup.
> > +	 */
> > +	smp_wmb();
> 
> Shouldn't the above be an smp_mb()?  There are reads preceding the calls
> to csd_complete() that look to me like they need to remain ordered
> before the flag-clearing below -- just in case of a quick reuse of this
> call_single_data structure.

Good point, however I just did a patch that made CSD_FLAG_WAIT go
away :-)

> > +	data->flags &= ~CSD_FLAG_WAIT;
> > +}
> > +
> > +static void csd_wait(struct call_single_data *data)
> > +{
> > +	while (data->flags & CSD_FLAG_WAIT)
> > +		cpu_relax();
> > +}
> > +
> > +/*
> > + * csd_lock/csd_unlock used to serialize access to per-cpu csd resources
> > + *
> > + * For non-synchronous ipi calls the csd can still be in use by the previous
> > + * function call. For multi-cpu calls its even more interesting as we'll have
> > + * to ensure no other cpu is observing our csd.
> > + */
> > +static void csd_lock(struct call_single_data *data)
> >  {
> > -	/* Wait for response */
> > -	do {
> > -		if (!(data->flags & CSD_FLAG_WAIT))
> > -			break;
> > +	while (data->flags & CSD_FLAG_LOCK)
> >  		cpu_relax();
> > -	} while (1);
> > +	data->flags = CSD_FLAG_LOCK;
> 
> OK, I'll bite...  Why don't we need a memory barrier here?

cpu_relax() is a compiler barrier, missing a memory barrier will just
make us spin this little while extra until the cacheline does hit us.

> > +}
> > +
> > +static void csd_unlock(struct call_single_data *data)
> > +{
> > +	WARN_ON(!(data->flags & CSD_FLAG_LOCK));
> > +	/*
> > +	 * Serialize stores to data with the flags clear.
> > +	 */
> > +	smp_wmb();
> 
> I am a bit worried about this being smp_wmb() rather than smp_mb(),
> but don't have a smoking gun.


		data->func(data->info);

		/*
		 * Unlocked CSDs are valid through generic_exec_single()
		 */
		if (data_flags & CSD_FLAG_LOCK)
			csd_unlock(data);

could the data->info read be delayed until after csd_unlock() ?

I'll make it an mb().


> And about here I get lost -- trying to find what the heck this patch
> applies to...  :-/

Right, I was in the process of sending out a full patch-set again.

--
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/