linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] si time accounting accounts bh

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <1285845421.2144.12.camel@laptop>
Date:	Thu, 30 Sep 2010 13:17:01 +0200
From:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:	Venkatesh Pallipadi <venki@...gle.com>
Cc:	Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@...ibm.com>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Balbir Singh <balbir@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Paul Turner <pjt@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] si time accounting accounts bh_disable'd time to si

On Mon, 2010-09-27 at 13:35 -0700, Venkatesh Pallipadi wrote:
> >> >> > You still do have the problem with local_bh_disable() though, since you
> >> >> > cannot distinguish between having bh disabled and processing softirq.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > So a hardirq that hits while you have bh disabled will inflate your
> >> >> > softirq time.
> 
> >> >> Hmm, that bug is valid for CONFIG_VIRT_CPU_ACCOUNTING=y as well.
> >> >
> >> > And nobody ever noticed?
> >> >
> >> Yes. I inherited the API from VIRT_CPU_ACCOUNTING along with this
> >> local_bh_disable bug. Agree that we need one extra bit to handle this
> >> case. I will take a stab at fixing this along with refresh of this
> >> patchset if no one else has beaten me to it until then.
> >
> >Make sure to only fix the softirq processing on the hardirq tail, not
> > the ksoftirqd one :-)
> 
> softirq processing from hardirq tail and ksoftirqd are currently
> handled in the same way and I didn't see any issues changing both of
> them. Am I missing something? 

Well, ksoftirq is a task and its runtime should be accounted to that
task, not softirq.. otherwise softirq and task time get all funny, makes
sense?
--
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/