linux-kernel - [34-longterm 089/260] sched: Optimize task_rq

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: <1293952756-15010-90-git-send-email-paul.gortmaker@windriver.com>
Date:	Sun,  2 Jan 2011 02:16:25 -0500
From:	Paul Gortmaker <paul.gortmaker@...driver.com>
To:	stable@...nel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc:	stable-review@...nel.org, Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Paul Gortmaker <paul.gortmaker@...driver.com>
Subject: [34-longterm 089/260] sched: Optimize task_rq_lock()

From: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>

commit 65cc8e4859ff29a9ddc989c88557d6059834c2a2 upstream.

Now that we hold the rq->lock over set_task_cpu() again, we can do
away with most of the TASK_WAKING checks and reduce them again to
set_cpus_allowed_ptr().

Removes some conditionals from scheduling hot-paths.

Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
Cc: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
LKML-Reference: <new-submission>
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Signed-off-by: Paul Gortmaker <paul.gortmaker@...driver.com>
---
 kernel/sched.c |   23 +++++++++++++++--------
 1 files changed, 15 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)

diff --git a/kernel/sched.c b/kernel/sched.c
index 31b0bae..e542c1e 100644
--- a/kernel/sched.c
+++ b/kernel/sched.c
@@ -914,8 +914,8 @@ static inline void finish_lock_switch(struct rq *rq, struct task_struct *prev)
 #endif /* __ARCH_WANT_UNLOCKED_CTXSW */
 
 /*
- * Check whether the task is waking, we use this to synchronize against
- * ttwu() so that task_cpu() reports a stable number.
+ * Check whether the task is waking, we use this to synchronize ->cpus_allowed
+ * against ttwu().
  */
 static inline int task_is_waking(struct task_struct *p)
 {
@@ -932,11 +932,9 @@ static inline struct rq *__task_rq_lock(struct task_struct *p)
 	struct rq *rq;
 
 	for (;;) {
-		while (task_is_waking(p))
-			cpu_relax();
 		rq = task_rq(p);
 		raw_spin_lock(&rq->lock);
-		if (likely(rq == task_rq(p) && !task_is_waking(p)))
+		if (likely(rq == task_rq(p)))
 			return rq;
 		raw_spin_unlock(&rq->lock);
 	}
@@ -953,12 +951,10 @@ static struct rq *task_rq_lock(struct task_struct *p, unsigned long *flags)
 	struct rq *rq;
 
 	for (;;) {
-		while (task_is_waking(p))
-			cpu_relax();
 		local_irq_save(*flags);
 		rq = task_rq(p);
 		raw_spin_lock(&rq->lock);
-		if (likely(rq == task_rq(p) && !task_is_waking(p)))
+		if (likely(rq == task_rq(p)))
 			return rq;
 		raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&rq->lock, *flags);
 	}
@@ -5341,7 +5337,18 @@ int set_cpus_allowed_ptr(struct task_struct *p, const struct cpumask *new_mask)
 	struct rq *rq;
 	int ret = 0;
 
+	/*
+	 * Serialize against TASK_WAKING so that ttwu() and wunt() can
+	 * drop the rq->lock and still rely on ->cpus_allowed.
+	 */
+again:
+	while (task_is_waking(p))
+		cpu_relax();
 	rq = task_rq_lock(p, &flags);
+	if (task_is_waking(p)) {
+		task_rq_unlock(rq, &flags);
+		goto again;
+	}
 
 	if (!cpumask_intersects(new_mask, cpu_active_mask)) {
 		ret = -EINVAL;
-- 
1.7.3.3

--
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/