linux-kernel - Re: [patch 2/3] scheduler: add full memory barriers upon task switch at runqueue lock/unlock

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:	Mon, 01 Feb 2010 10:23:35 -0500
From:	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To:	Nick Piggin <npiggin@...e.de>
Cc:	Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...ymtl.ca>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	akpm@...ux-foundation.org, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>,
	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Nicholas Miell <nmiell@...cast.net>, laijs@...fujitsu.com,
	dipankar@...ibm.com, josh@...htriplett.org, dvhltc@...ibm.com,
	niv@...ibm.com, tglx@...utronix.de, Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu,
	dhowells@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [patch 2/3] scheduler: add full memory barriers upon task
 switch at runqueue lock/unlock

On Tue, 2010-02-02 at 01:58 +1100, Nick Piggin wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 01, 2010 at 09:47:59AM -0500, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
> > * Nick Piggin (npiggin@...e.de) wrote:
> > > Well I just mean that it's something for -rt to work out. Apps can
> > > still work if the call is unsupported completely.
> > 
> > OK, so we seem to be settling for the spinlock-based sys_membarrier()
> > this time, which is much less intrusive in terms of scheduler
> > fast path modification, but adds more system overhead each time
> > sys_membarrier() is called. This trade-off makes sense to me, as we
> > expect the scheduler to execute _much_ more often than sys_membarrier().
> > 
> > When I get confirmation that's the route to follow from both of you,
> > I'll go back to the spinlock-based scheme for v9.
> 
> I think locking or cacheline bouncing DoS is just something we can't
> realistically worry too much about in the standard kernel. No further
> than just generally good practice of good scalability, avoiding
> starvations and long lock hold times etc.
> 
> So I would prefer the simpler version that doesn't add overhead to
> ctxsw, at least for the first implementation.

Acked-by: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>

;-)

-- Steve


--
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/