linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/2] cpuhotplug: make get_online_cpus() scalability by using percpu counter

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

Message-ID: <20100407135456.GA12029@redhat.com>
Date:	Wed, 7 Apr 2010 15:54:56 +0200
From:	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To:	Lai Jiangshan <laijs@...fujitsu.com>
Cc:	Gautham R Shenoy <ego@...ibm.com>,
	Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>,
	Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
	Hugh Dickins <hugh.dickins@...cali.co.uk>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Nathan Fontenot <nfont@...tin.ibm.com>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Sachin Sant <sachinp@...ibm.com>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
	Shane Wang <shane.wang@...el.com>,
	Roland McGrath <roland@...hat.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] cpuhotplug: make get_online_cpus() scalability by
	using percpu counter

On 04/07, Lai Jiangshan wrote:
>
> Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > On 04/05, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> >> On 04/05, Lai Jiangshan wrote:
> >>> 1) get_online_cpus() must be allowed to be called recursively, so I added
> >>>    get_online_cpus_nest for every task for new code.
> >> Well, iirc one of the goals of
> >>
> >> 	cpu-hotplug: replace lock_cpu_hotplug() with get_online_cpus()
> >> 	86ef5c9a8edd78e6bf92879f32329d89b2d55b5a
> >>
> >> was avoiding the new members in task_struct. I leave this up to you
> >> and Gautham.
>
> Old get_online_cpus() is read-preference, I think the goal of this ability
> is allow get_online_cpus()/put_online_cpus() to be called nested.

Sure, I understand why you added task_struct->get_online_cpus_nest.

> and use per-task counter for allowing get_online_cpus()/put_online_cpus()
> to be called nested, I think this deal is absolutely worth.

As I said, I am not going to argue. I can't justify this tradeoff.

> >>>  void put_online_cpus(void)
> >>>  {
> >>> ...
> >>> +	if (!--current->get_online_cpus_nest) {
> >>> +		preempt_disable();
> >>> +		__get_cpu_var(refcount)--;
> >>> +		if (cpu_hotplug_task)
> >>> +			wake_up_process(cpu_hotplug_task);
> >> This looks unsafe. In theory nothing protects cpu_hotplug_task from
> >> exiting if refcount_sum() becomes zero, this means wake_up_process()
> >> can hit the freed/reused/unmapped task_struct. Probably cpu_hotplug_done()
> >> needs another synhronize_sched() before return.
> >
> > Yes, I think this is true, at least in theory.
>
> preempt_disable() prevent cpu_hotplug_task from exiting.

If the cpu_down() is the caller of cpu_hotplug_begin/done, then yes.

But unless I missed something, nothing protects from cpu_up() which
takes this lock too.

Just in case... I am not saying this is really possible in practice.

Oleg.

--
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/