| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <20110223191333.GD2591@nowhere>
Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2011 20:13:35 +0100
From: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
To: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, mingo@...e.hu, laijs@...fujitsu.com,
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,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paul.mckenney@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC tip/core/rcu 11/11] rcu: move TREE_RCU from softirq
to kthread
On Wed, Feb 23, 2011 at 11:06:01AM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 23, 2011 at 05:50:46PM +0100, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> > On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 05:39:40PM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > +}
> > > +
> > > +/*
> > > + * Drop to non-real-time priority and yield, but only after posting a
> > > + * timer that will cause us to regain our real-time priority if we
> > > + * remain preempted. Either way, we restore our real-time priority
> > > + * before returning.
> > > + */
> > > +static void rcu_yield(int cpu)
> > > +{
> > > + struct rcu_data *rdp = per_cpu_ptr(rcu_sched_state.rda, cpu);
> > > + struct sched_param sp;
> > > + struct timer_list yield_timer;
> > > +
> > > + setup_timer(&yield_timer, rcu_cpu_kthread_timer, (unsigned long)rdp);
> > > + mod_timer(&yield_timer, jiffies + 2);
> > > + sp.sched_priority = 0;
> > > + sched_setscheduler_nocheck(current, SCHED_NORMAL, &sp);
> > > + schedule();
> > > + sp.sched_priority = RCU_KTHREAD_PRIO;
> > > + sched_setscheduler_nocheck(current, SCHED_FIFO, &sp);
> > > + del_timer(&yield_timer);
> > > +}
> > > +
> > > +/*
> > > + * Handle cases where the rcu_cpu_kthread() ends up on the wrong CPU.
> > > + * This can happen while the corresponding CPU is either coming online
> > > + * or going offline. We cannot wait until the CPU is fully online
> > > + * before starting the kthread, because the various notifier functions
> > > + * can wait for RCU grace periods. So we park rcu_cpu_kthread() until
> > > + * the corresponding CPU is online.
> > > + *
> > > + * Return 1 if the kthread needs to stop, 0 otherwise.
> > > + *
> > > + * Caller must disable bh. This function can momentarily enable it.
> > > + */
> > > +static int rcu_cpu_kthread_should_stop(int cpu)
> > > +{
> > > + while (cpu_is_offline(cpu) || smp_processor_id() != cpu) {
> > > + if (kthread_should_stop())
> > > + return 1;
> > > + local_bh_enable();
> > > + schedule_timeout_uninterruptible(1);
> >
> > Why is it uninterruptible? Well that doesn't change much anyway.
> > It can be a problem for long time sleeping kernel threads because of
> > the hung task detector, but certainly not for 1 jiffy.
>
> Yep, and the next patch does in fact change this to
> schedule_timeout_interruptible().
>
> Good eyes, though!
>
> Thanx, Paul
Ok.
Don't forget what I wrote below ;)
>
> > > + if (smp_processor_id() != cpu)
> > > + set_cpus_allowed_ptr(current, cpumask_of(cpu));
> > > + local_bh_disable();
> > > + }
> > > + return 0;
> > > +}
> > > +
> > > +/*
> > > + * Per-CPU kernel thread that invokes RCU callbacks. This replaces the
> > > + * earlier RCU softirq.
> > > + */
> > > +static int rcu_cpu_kthread(void *arg)
> > > +{
> > > + int cpu = (int)(long)arg;
> > > + unsigned long flags;
> > > + int spincnt = 0;
> > > + wait_queue_head_t *wqp = &per_cpu(rcu_cpu_wq, cpu);
> > > + char work;
> > > + char *workp = &per_cpu(rcu_cpu_has_work, cpu);
> > > +
> > > + for (;;) {
> > > + wait_event_interruptible(*wqp,
> > > + *workp != 0 || kthread_should_stop());
> > > + local_bh_disable();
> > > + if (rcu_cpu_kthread_should_stop(cpu)) {
> > > + local_bh_enable();
> > > + break;
> > > + }
> > > + local_irq_save(flags);
> > > + work = *workp;
> > > + *workp = 0;
> > > + local_irq_restore(flags);
> > > + if (work)
> > > + rcu_process_callbacks();
> > > + local_bh_enable();
> > > + if (*workp != 0)
> > > + spincnt++;
> > > + else
> > > + spincnt = 0;
> > > + if (spincnt > 10) {
> > > + rcu_yield(cpu);
> > > + spincnt = 0;
> > > + }
> > > + }
> > > + return 0;
> > > +}
> > > +
> > > +/*
> > > + * Per-rcu_node kthread, which is in charge of waking up the per-CPU
> > > + * kthreads when needed.
> > > + */
> > > +static int rcu_node_kthread(void *arg)
> > > +{
> > > + int cpu;
> > > + unsigned long flags;
> > > + unsigned long mask;
> > > + struct rcu_node *rnp = (struct rcu_node *)arg;
> > > + struct sched_param sp;
> > > + struct task_struct *t;
> > > +
> > > + for (;;) {
> > > + wait_event_interruptible(rnp->node_wq, rnp->wakemask != 0 ||
> > > + kthread_should_stop());
> > > + if (kthread_should_stop())
> > > + break;
> > > + raw_spin_lock_irqsave(&rnp->lock, flags);
> > > + mask = rnp->wakemask;
> > > + rnp->wakemask = 0;
> > > + raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&rnp->lock, flags);
> > > + for (cpu = rnp->grplo; cpu <= rnp->grphi; cpu++, mask <<= 1) {
> > > + if ((mask & 0x1) == 0)
> > > + continue;
> > > + preempt_disable();
> > > + per_cpu(rcu_cpu_has_work, cpu) = 1;
> > > + t = per_cpu(rcu_cpu_kthread_task, cpu);
> > > + if (t == NULL) {
> > > + preempt_enable();
> > > + continue;
> > > + }
> > > + sp.sched_priority = RCU_KTHREAD_PRIO;
> > > + sched_setscheduler_nocheck(t, cpu, &sp);
> > > + wake_up_process(t);
> >
> > My (mis?)understanding of the picture is this node kthread is there to
> > wake up cpu threads that called rcu_yield(). But actually rcu_yield()
> > doesn't make the cpu thread sleeping, instead it switches to SCHED_NORMAL,
> > to avoid starving the system with callbacks.
> >
> > So I wonder if this wake_up_process() is actually relevant.
> > sched_setscheduler_nocheck() already handles the per sched policy rq migration
> > and the process is not sleeping.
> >
> > That said, by the time the process may have gone to sleep, because if no other
> > SCHED_NORMAL task was there, it has just continued and may have flushed
> > every callbacks. So this wake_up_process() may actually wake up the task
> > but it will sleep again right away due to the condition in wait_event_interruptible()
> > of the cpu thread.
> >
> > Right?
> >
> > > + preempt_enable();
> > > + }
> > > + }
> > > + return 0;
> > > +}
--
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