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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20110623092845.GJ30101@htj.dyndns.org>
Date:	Thu, 23 Jun 2011 11:28:45 +0200
From:	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To:	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
Cc:	Suresh Siddha <suresh.b.siddha@...el.com>, mingo@...e.hu,
	tglx@...utronix.de, hpa@...or.com, trenn@...ell.com,
	prarit@...hat.com, rusty@...tcorp.com.au,
	akpm@...ux-foundation.org, torvalds@...ux-foundation.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, youquan.song@...el.com
Subject: Re: [patch 3/4] stop_machine: implement
 stop_machine_from_offline_cpu()

Hello, Peter.

On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 11:25:19AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Wed, 2011-06-22 at 15:20 -0700, Suresh Siddha wrote:
> > +int stop_machine_from_offline_cpu(int (*fn)(void *), void *data,
> > +                                 const struct cpumask *cpus)
> > +{
> > +       struct stop_machine_data smdata = { .fn = fn, .data = data,
> > +                                           .active_cpus = cpus };
> > +       struct cpu_stop_done done;
> > +       int ret;
> > +
> > +       /* Local CPU must be offline and CPU hotplug in progress. */
> > +       BUG_ON(cpu_online(raw_smp_processor_id()));
> > +       smdata.num_threads = num_online_cpus() + 1;     /* +1 for local */
> > +
> > +       /* No proper task established and can't sleep - busy wait for lock. */
> > +       while (!mutex_trylock(&stop_cpus_mutex))
> > +               cpu_relax();
> > +
> > +       /* Schedule work on other CPUs and execute directly for local CPU */
> > +       set_state(&smdata, STOPMACHINE_PREPARE);
> > +       cpu_stop_init_done(&done, num_online_cpus());
> > +       queue_stop_cpus_work(cpu_online_mask, stop_machine_cpu_stop, &smdata,
> > +                            &done);
> > +       ret = stop_machine_cpu_stop(&smdata);
> > +
> > +       /* Busy wait for completion. */
> > +       while (!completion_done(&done.completion))
> > +               cpu_relax();
> > +
> > +       mutex_unlock(&stop_cpus_mutex);
> > +       return ret ?: done.ret;
> > +} 
> 
> Damn thats ugly, I sure hope you're going to make those hardware folks
> pay for this :-)

Oh, I agree it's fugly.  It's trying to orchestrate stop_machine from
a CPU which doesn't have proper scheduler/task set up.  At least it's
contained in a single relatively short function.

Thanks.

-- 
tejun
--
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

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ