linux-kernel - Re: [patch 1/4] x86, mtrr: lock stop machine during MTRR rendezvous sequence

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]

Date:	Thu, 23 Jun 2011 11:41:23 +0200
From:	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
To:	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Cc:	Suresh Siddha <suresh.b.siddha@...el.com>, mingo@...e.hu,
	hpa@...or.com, trenn@...ell.com, prarit@...hat.com, tj@...nel.org,
	rusty@...tcorp.com.au, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
	torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	youquan.song@...el.com, stable@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [patch 1/4] x86, mtrr: lock stop machine during MTRR
 rendezvous sequence

On Thu, 2011-06-23 at 11:33 +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Thu, 23 Jun 2011, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> 
> > On Wed, 2011-06-22 at 15:20 -0700, Suresh Siddha wrote:
> > > +#ifdef CONFIG_SMP
> > > +       /*
> > > +        * If we are not yet online, then there can be no stop_machine() in
> > > +        * parallel. Stop machine ensures this by using get_online_cpus().
> > > +        *
> > > +        * If we are online, then we need to prevent a stop_machine() happening
> > > +        * in parallel by taking the stop cpus mutex.
> > > +        */
> > > +       if (cpu_online(raw_smp_processor_id()))
> > > +               mutex_lock(&stop_cpus_mutex);
> > > +#endif 
> > 
> > This reads like an optimization, is it really worth-while to not take
> > the mutex in the rare offline case?
>  
> You cannot block on a mutex when you are not online, in fact you
> cannot block on it when not active, so the check is wrong anyway.

Duh, yeah. Comment totally mislead me.

On that whole active thing, so cpu_active() is brought into life to sort
an cpu-down problem, where we want the lb to stop using a cpu before we
can re-build the sched_domains.

But now we're having trouble because of that on the cpu-up part, where
we update the sched_domains too late (CPU_ONLINE) and hence also set
cpu_active() too late (again CPU_ONLINE).

Couldn't we update the sched_domain tree on CPU_PREPARE_UP to include
the new cpu and then set cpu_active() right along with cpu_online()?

That would also sort your other wait for active while bringup issue..

Note, I'll now go and have my morning juice, so the above might be total
crap.
--
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/