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
| ||
|
Date: Mon, 20 Dec 2010 16:57:42 +0100 From: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com> To: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl> Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>, Lai Jiangshan <laijs@...fujitsu.com>, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, Anton Blanchard <anton@....ibm.com>, Tim Pepper <lnxninja@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 15/15] nohz_task: Procfs interface On Mon, Dec 20, 2010 at 04:42:24PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Mon, 2010-12-20 at 16:24 +0100, Frederic Weisbecker wrote: > > This implements the /proc/pid/nohz file that enables the > > nohz attribute of a task. > > > > Synchronization is enforced so that: > > > > - A CPU can have only one nohz task > > Why? This is because of the hooks we have with entering/exiting userspace. The "wants to enter extended quiescent" variable (nohz_task_ext_qs) is per CPU and applies to any nohz task. If A and B are nohz task bound to the same CPU, A enters userspace, says it can enter extended quiescent state (nohz_task_ext_qs = 1). B preempts it and enters kernel, hence saying that it doesn't want extended quiescent state (nohz_task_ext_qs = 0). B sleeps, we return to A which said that it wants extended quiescent state but the per cpu var has been screwed (nohz_task_ext_qs == 0). But this can be solved using a per task variable. I just thought it wouldn't be very useful to have two nohz task on a same CPU, but actually why not. > > - A nohz task can be only affine to a single CPU > > Why? Same problem, we need to make some things per task. That's fixable, This will may be add a bit of complexity and since I couldn't find a usecase for migratable nohz tasks, I did not handled that case. Should I? > > For now this is only possible to write on /proc/self but probably > > allowing it from another task would be a good idea and wouldn't > > increase so much the complexity of the code. > > ptrace rules might match that. You think I should use the ptrace interface? Hmm, dunno if it's appropriate. -- 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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists