linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/4] stop_machine: reimplement using cpuhog

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: <4B95F5C5.3050604@kernel.org>
Date:	Tue, 09 Mar 2010 16:16:21 +0900
From:	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To:	Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@...ibm.com>
CC:	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	rusty@...tcorp.com.au, sivanich@....com,
	torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, mingo@...e.hu, peterz@...radead.org,
	dipankar@...ibm.com, josh@...edesktop.org,
	paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
	Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@...ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/4] stop_machine: reimplement using cpuhog

On 03/09/2010 04:09 PM, Heiko Carstens wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 09, 2010 at 08:39:40AM +0900, Tejun Heo wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> On 03/09/2010 04:37 AM, Heiko Carstens wrote:
>>>> How cpuhog can make a difference? Afaics, we shouldn't pass a
>>>> blocking callback to hog_cpus/hog_one_cpu.
>>>
>>> Well, it might me true that this shouldn't be done. But I don't see
>>> a reason why in general it wouldn't work to pass a function that
>>> would block.  So it's just a matter of time until somebody uses it
>>> for such a purpose.  For the current stop_machine implementation it
>>> would be broken to pass a blocking function (preemption disabled,
>>> interrupts disabled).
>>
>> Well, all current users don't block and it definitely can be enforced
>> by turning off preemption around the callback.  stop_machine() uses
>> busy waiting for every state transition so something else blocking on
>> a cpu could waste a lot of cpu cycles on other cpus even if the wait
>> is guaranteed to be finite.  Would that sooth your concern?
> 
> Yes, enforcing non blocking functions would be good.

Alright, will refresh and post the second round.

Thanks.

-- 
tejun
--
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/