linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH RFC tip/core/rcu 15/20] rcu: Keep gpnum and completed fields synchronized

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]

Message-ID: <4D0EBBCF.2070305@cn.fujitsu.com>
Date:	Mon, 20 Dec 2010 10:13:35 +0800
From:	Lai Jiangshan <laijs@...fujitsu.com>
To:	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
CC:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, mingo@...e.hu, dipankar@...ibm.com,
	akpm@...ux-foundation.org, mathieu.desnoyers@...ymtl.ca,
	josh@...htriplett.org, niv@...ibm.com, tglx@...utronix.de,
	peterz@...radead.org, rostedt@...dmis.org, Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu,
	dhowells@...hat.com, eric.dumazet@...il.com, darren@...art.com,
	Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC tip/core/rcu 15/20] rcu: Keep gpnum and completed
 fields synchronized

On 12/18/2010 04:54 AM, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> From: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
> 
> When a CPU that was in an extended quiescent state wakes
> up and catches up with grace periods that remote CPUs
> completed on its behalf, we update the completed field
> but not the gpnum that keeps a stale value of a backward
> grace period ID.
> 
> Later, note_new_gpnum() will interpret the shift between
> the local CPU and the node grace period ID as some new grace
> period to handle and will then start to hunt quiescent state.
> 
> But if every grace periods have already been completed, this
> interpretation becomes broken. And we'll be stuck in clusters
> of spurious softirqs because rcu_report_qs_rdp() will make
> this broken state run into infinite loop.
> 
> The solution, as suggested by Lai Jiangshan, is to ensure that
> the gpnum and completed fields are well synchronized when we catch
> up with completed grace periods on their behalf by other cpus.
> This way we won't start noting spurious new grace periods.
> 
> Suggested-by: Lai Jiangshan <laijs@...fujitsu.com>
> Signed-off-by: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
> Cc: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
> Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
> Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
> Cc: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
> Cc: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org
> Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
> ---
>  kernel/rcutree.c |    9 +++++++++
>  1 files changed, 9 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/kernel/rcutree.c b/kernel/rcutree.c
> index 916f42b..8105271 100644
> --- a/kernel/rcutree.c
> +++ b/kernel/rcutree.c
> @@ -680,6 +680,15 @@ __rcu_process_gp_end(struct rcu_state *rsp, struct rcu_node *rnp, struct rcu_dat
>  		rdp->completed = rnp->completed;
>  
>  		/*
> +		 * If we were in an extended quiescent state, we may have
> +		 * missed some grace periods that others CPUs took care on
> +		 * our behalf. Catch up with this state to avoid noting
> +		 * spurious new grace periods.
> +		 */
> +		if (rdp->completed > rdp->gpnum)
> +			rdp->gpnum = rdp->completed;

Need to use ULONG_CMP_LT(rdp->gpnum, rdp->completed) instead.

> +
> +		/*
>  		 * If another CPU handled our extended quiescent states and
>  		 * we have no more grace period to complete yet, then stop
>  		 * chasing quiescent states.

--
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/