linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/6] sched/cpusets fixes, more changes are needed

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:	Thu, 25 Mar 2010 18:29:02 +0100
From:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
Cc:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, Ben Blum <bblum@...gle.com>,
	Jiri Slaby <jirislaby@...il.com>,
	Lai Jiangshan <laijs@...fujitsu.com>,
	Li Zefan <lizf@...fujitsu.com>,
	Miao Xie <miaox@...fujitsu.com>,
	Paul Menage <menage@...gle.com>,
	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/6] sched/cpusets fixes, more changes are needed

On Thu, 2010-03-25 at 17:10 +0100, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> Argh, sorry for noise...
> 
> On 03/25, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> >
> > On 03/25, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > >
> > > I like the current idea to call select_task_rq() without rq->lock, but
> > > of course this is up to you.
> > >
> > > However, once again, can't we make a simpler patch?
> > >
> > > 	- remove PF_STARTING from task_waking()
> > > 	
> > > 	- change sched_fork() to set RUNNING instead of WAKING
> 
> When I reread this thread, suddenly finally I noticed you mentioned
> _twice_ your patch does this too ;) Not to mention the patch itself
> which I misread. Sorry.
> 
> > IOW, something like the (unchecked, uncompiled) patch below.
> 
> Still, what do you think?

Yeah, such a smaller patch might work too, but I was trying to remove
some more of the complexity we grown.

Being able to fully remove that TASK_WAKING check from task_rq_lock()
and only have it in set_cpus_allowed_ptr() would reduce some fast-path
logic.

You patch add a memory barrier and an unlock_wait(), which, while
seemingly correct, are harder to parse than the modified locking.

(Ideally we'd protect ->cpus_allowed using a per-task lock, but adding
more atomics ops to ttwu() is to be avoided)

(Now if I could manage to remove that lock-drop for the cgroup muck we'd
be able to remove TASK_WAKING... but that looks like a long term goal)


--
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/