linux-kernel - Re: [RFC patch] introduce sys_membarrier(): process-wide memory barrier (v9)

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <1267162621.6328.108.camel@gandalf.stny.rr.com>
Date:	Fri, 26 Feb 2010 00:37:01 -0500
From:	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To:	Nick Piggin <npiggin@...e.de>
Cc:	Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>,
	Chris Friesen <cfriesen@...tel.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org,
	KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>,
	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Nicholas Miell <nmiell@...cast.net>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>, mingo@...e.hu,
	laijs@...fujitsu.com, dipankar@...ibm.com,
	akpm@...ux-foundation.org, josh@...htriplett.org,
	dvhltc@...ibm.com, niv@...ibm.com, tglx@...utronix.de,
	peterz@...radead.org, Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu, dhowells@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [RFC patch] introduce sys_membarrier(): process-wide memory
 barrier (v9)

On Fri, 2010-02-26 at 16:08 +1100, Nick Piggin wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 11:53:01AM -0500, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:

> > This is actually what I did in v1 of the patch, but this implementation met
> > resistance from the RT people, who were concerned about the impact on RT tasks
> > of a lower priority process doing lots of sys_membarrier() calls. So if we want
> > to do other-process-aware sys_membarrier(), we would have to iterate on all
> > cpus, for every running process shared memory maps and see if there is something
> > shared with all shm of the current process. This is clearly not as trivial as
> > just broadcasting the IPI to all cpus.
> 
> I don't see how this is fundamentally worse than your existing approach,
> because on some architectures with asids, the mm_cpumask isn't cleared
> when a process is scheduled off the CPU then you could effectively just
> cause IPIs to lots of CPUs anyway.

That's why checking the mm_cpumask isn't the only check. That just
limits what CPUs we check, but before a IPI is sent, that cpu has its rq
lock held and a check against cpu_curr(cpu)->mm vs the current->mm. If
that fails, then that CPU does not have an IPI sent to it.

-- 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/