linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] cpuhotplug: introduce try_get_online

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: <20090604204958.GA5071@redhat.com>
Date:	Thu, 4 Jun 2009 22:49:58 +0200
From:	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To:	Lai Jiangshan <laijs@...fujitsu.com>
Cc:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Gautham R Shenoy <ego@...ibm.com>,
	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] cpuhotplug: introduce try_get_online_cpus() take 2

On 06/04, Lai Jiangshan wrote:
>
> - Lockless for get_online_cpus()'s fast path
> - Introduce try_get_online_cpus()

I think this can work...

> @@ -50,10 +57,20 @@ void get_online_cpus(void)
>  	might_sleep();
>  	if (cpu_hotplug.active_writer == current)
>  		return;
> -	mutex_lock(&cpu_hotplug.lock);
> -	cpu_hotplug.refcount++;
> -	mutex_unlock(&cpu_hotplug.lock);
>
> +	if (unlikely(!atomic_inc_not_zero(&cpu_hotplug.refcount))) {
> +		DEFINE_WAIT(wait);
> +
> +		for (;;) {
> +			prepare_to_wait(&cpu_hotplug.sleeping_readers, &wait,
> +					TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE);
> +			if (atomic_inc_not_zero(&cpu_hotplug.refcount))
> +				break;
> +			schedule();
> +		}
> +
> +		finish_wait(&cpu_hotplug.sleeping_readers, &wait);
> +	}
>  }

Looks like the code above can be replaced with

	wait_event(atomic_inc_not_zero(&cpu_hotplug.refcount));

>  static void cpu_hotplug_done(void)
>  {
>  	cpu_hotplug.active_writer = NULL;
> -	mutex_unlock(&cpu_hotplug.lock);
> +	atomic_inc(&cpu_hotplug.refcount);
> +
> +	if (waitqueue_active(&cpu_hotplug.sleeping_readers))
> +		wake_up(&cpu_hotplug.sleeping_readers);
>  }

This looks racy.

Suppose that the new reader comes right before atomic_inc(). The first
inc_not_zero() fails, the readear does prepare_to_wait(), the 2nd
inc_not_zero() fails too.

cpu_hotplug_done() does atomic_inc().

What guarantees we must see waitqueue_active() == T?

I think cpu_hotplug_done() should do unconditional wake_up(). This path
is slow anyway, "if (waitqueue_active())" does not buy too much. In this
case .sleeping_readers->lock closes the race.

Unless I missed something, of course.

Minor, but I'd suggest to use wake_up_all(). This does not make any
difference because we do not have WQ_FLAG_EXCLUSIVE waiters, but imho
looks a bit cleaner.

Hmm. It seems to me that cpu_hotplug_done() needs mb__before_atomic_inc()
before atomic_inc. Otherwise, "active_writer = NULL" can be re-ordered with
atomic_inc(). If the new reader does get_online_cpus() + put_online_cpus()
quicky, it can see active_writer != NULL.

Oleg.

--
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/