linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH RFC] v7 expedited "big hammer" RCU grace periods

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:	Wed, 27 May 2009 09:57:19 +0800
From:	Lai Jiangshan <laijs@...fujitsu.com>
To:	paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com
CC:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	netfilter-devel@...r.kernel.org, mingo@...e.hu,
	akpm@...ux-foundation.org, torvalds@...ux-foundation.org,
	davem@...emloft.net, dada1@...mosbay.com, zbr@...emap.net,
	jeff.chua.linux@...il.com, paulus@...ba.org, jengelh@...ozas.de,
	r000n@...0n.net, benh@...nel.crashing.org,
	mathieu.desnoyers@...ymtl.ca
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC] v7 expedited "big hammer" RCU grace periods

Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> 
> I am concerned about the following sequence of events:
> 
> o	synchronize_sched_expedited() disables preemption, thus blocking
> 	offlining operations.
> 
> o	CPU 1 starts offlining CPU 0.  It acquires the CPU-hotplug lock,
> 	and proceeds, and is now waiting for preemption to be enabled.
> 
> o	synchronize_sched_expedited() disables preemption, sees
> 	that CPU 0 is online, so initializes and queues a request,
> 	does a wake-up-process(), and finally does a preempt_enable().
> 
> o	CPU 0 is currently running a high-priority real-time process,
> 	so the wakeup does not immediately happen.
> 
> o	The offlining process completes, including the kthread_stop()
> 	to the migration task.
> 
> o	The migration task wakes up, sees kthread_should_stop(),
> 	and so exits without checking its queue.
> 
> o	synchronize_sched_expedited() waits forever for CPU 0 to respond.
> 
> I suppose that one way to handle this would be to check for the CPU
> going offline before doing the wait_for_completion(), but I am concerned
> about races affecting this check as well.
> 
> Or is there something in the CPU-offline process that makes the above
> sequence of events impossible?
> 
> 							Thanx, Paul
> 
> 

I realized this, I wrote this:
> 
> The coupling of synchronize_sched_expedited() and migration_req
> is largely increased:
> 
> 1) The offline cpu's per_cpu(rcu_migration_req, cpu) is handled.
>    See migration_call::CPU_DEAD

synchronize_sched_expedited() will not wait for CPU#0, because
migration_call()::case CPU_DEAD wakes up the requestors.

migration_call()
{
	...
	case CPU_DEAD:
	case CPU_DEAD_FROZEN:
		...
		/*
		 * No need to migrate the tasks: it was best-effort if
		 * they didn't take sched_hotcpu_mutex. Just wake up
		 * the requestors.
		 */
		spin_lock_irq(&rq->lock);
		while (!list_empty(&rq->migration_queue)) {
			struct migration_req *req;

			req = list_entry(rq->migration_queue.next,
					 struct migration_req, list);
			list_del_init(&req->list);
			spin_unlock_irq(&rq->lock);
			complete(&req->done);
			spin_lock_irq(&rq->lock);
		}
		spin_unlock_irq(&rq->lock);
		...
	...
}

My approach depend on the requestors are waked up at any case.
migration_call() does it for us but the coupling is largely
increased.

Lai

--
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/