linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] sched: Move the sleeping while atomic checks early in cond

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: <1247247810.6042.5.camel@laptop>
Date:	Fri, 10 Jul 2009 19:43:30 +0200
From:	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
To:	Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
Cc:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sched: Move the sleeping while atomic checks early in
 cond_resched()

On Fri, 2009-07-10 at 19:14 +0200, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> might_sleep() is called lately in cond_resched(), after the
> need_resched()/preempt enabled/system running tests are checked.
> 
> It's better to check the sleeps while atomic earlier and not depend
> on some environment datas that reduce the chances to detect a
> problem.
> 
> Changes in v2:
> - call __might_sleep() directly instead of might_sleep() which may call
>   cond_resched()
> - turn cond_resched() into a macro so that the file:line couple reported
>   refers to the caller of cond_resched() and not __cond_resched() itself.
> - drop the obsolete CONFIG_PREEMPT_BKL related zones
> 
> Signed-off-by: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
> Cc: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
> 
> Signed-off-by: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
> ---
>  include/linux/sched.h |   22 +++++++---------------
>  kernel/sched.c        |    5 ++---
>  2 files changed, 9 insertions(+), 18 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/include/linux/sched.h b/include/linux/sched.h
> index 0cb0d8d..737f569 100644
> --- a/include/linux/sched.h
> +++ b/include/linux/sched.h
> @@ -2276,23 +2276,15 @@ static inline int need_resched(void)
>   * cond_resched_softirq() will enable bhs before scheduling.
>   */
>  extern int _cond_resched(void);
> -#ifdef CONFIG_PREEMPT_BKL
> -static inline int cond_resched(void)
> -{
> -	return 0;
> -}
> -#else
> -static inline int cond_resched(void)
> -{
> -	return _cond_resched();
> -}
> -#endif
> +#define cond_resched() ({			\
> +	__might_sleep(__FILE__, __LINE__);	\
> +	_cond_resched();			\
> +})

I don't think this will compile for !CONFIG_DEBUG_SPINLOCK_SLEEP.

>  extern int cond_resched_lock(spinlock_t * lock);
>  extern int cond_resched_softirq(void);
> -static inline int cond_resched_bkl(void)
> -{
> -	return _cond_resched();
> -}
> +
> +#define cond_resched_bkl()	cond_resched();

We might as well convert the one user of this ;-)

>  /*
>   * Does a critical section need to be broken due to another
> diff --git a/kernel/sched.c b/kernel/sched.c
> index 87ecac1..649ec92 100644
> --- a/kernel/sched.c
> +++ b/kernel/sched.c
> @@ -6605,9 +6605,6 @@ SYSCALL_DEFINE0(sched_yield)
>  
>  static void __cond_resched(void)
>  {
> -#ifdef CONFIG_DEBUG_SPINLOCK_SLEEP
> -	__might_sleep(__FILE__, __LINE__);
> -#endif
>  	/*
>  	 * The BKS might be reacquired before we have dropped
>  	 * PREEMPT_ACTIVE, which could trigger a second
> @@ -6644,6 +6641,7 @@ int cond_resched_lock(spinlock_t *lock)
>  
>  	if (spin_needbreak(lock) || resched) {
>  		spin_unlock(lock);
> +		__might_sleep(__FILE__, __LINE__);
>  		if (resched && need_resched())
>  			__cond_resched();
>  		else
> @@ -6661,6 +6659,7 @@ int __sched cond_resched_softirq(void)
>  
>  	if (need_resched() && system_state == SYSTEM_RUNNING) {
>  		local_bh_enable();
> +		__might_sleep(__FILE__, __LINE__);
>  		__cond_resched();
>  		local_bh_disable();
>  		return 1;

Right, how about renaming these to _cond_resched_{lock,softirq}, and
added a __might_sleep() definition for !DEBUG_SPINLOCK_SLEEP and add
macro wrappers to sched.c for these two as well?

--
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/