linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] lglock: make lg_lock_global() actually lock globally

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, 26 Aug 2010 14:23:35 +1000
From:	Nick Piggin <npiggin@...nel.dk>
To:	Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>
Cc:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
	Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>,
	Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
	Nick Piggin <npiggin@...nel.dk>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] lglock: make lg_lock_global() actually lock globally

On Wed, Aug 25, 2010 at 02:16:44PM -0600, Jonathan Corbet wrote:
> On Wed, 25 Aug 2010 13:00:59 -0700
> Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
> 
> > Grrr. Same disease as Nick and others. Why do you repeat the subject
> > line in the body? Don't do that. We don't want the summary line twice
> > in the commit message, and we don't want it twice in the email.
> > 
> > We simply don't want it twice. Full stop.
> 
> Sorry, I just pasted in the "git format-patch" output.  Will never ever
> ever do it again I promise cross my heart.
> 
> > > lg_lock_global() currently only acquires spinlocks for online CPUs, but
> > > it's meant to lock all possible CPUs.  At Nick's suggestion, change
> > > for_each_online_cpu() to for_each_possible_cpu() to get the expected
> > > behavior.  
> > 
> > Can you say what this actually matters for? Don't we do stop-machine
> > for CPU hotplug anyway? And if we don't, shouldn't we? Exactly because
> > otherwise "for_each_online_cpu()" is always racy (and that has nothing
> > to do with the lglock).
> 
> As I understand it from Nick (after I asked him why the two lock
> primitives were identical): the files_lock scalability work puts a
> per-CPU list of open files into each superblock.  A CPU can be offlined
> while there are open files in "its" lists, and nothing is done to shift
> those files to a still-online CPU's list.  So there will still be
> cross-CPU accesses to those lists as those files are closed; that means
> we need to be sure to acquire locks associated with offline CPUs if we
> want to avoid races.
> 
> lg_global_lock_online() is used (only) in the brlock implementation,
> instead.  In this case, there's no leftover data if a CPU goes
> offline, so no need to take locks associated with offline CPUs.

Yep, thanks Jon, I owe a bit more documentation in that file, coming up.


--
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/