linux-kernel - Re: [patch 3/4] stop_machine: implement stop_machine_from_offline

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 11:19:13 -0700
From:	Suresh Siddha <suresh.b.siddha@...el.com>
To:	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
Cc:	"mingo@...e.hu" <mingo@...e.hu>,
	"tglx@...utronix.de" <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	"hpa@...or.com" <hpa@...or.com>,
	"trenn@...ell.com" <trenn@...ell.com>,
	"prarit@...hat.com" <prarit@...hat.com>,
	"tj@...nel.org" <tj@...nel.org>,
	"rusty@...tcorp.com.au" <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>,
	"akpm@...ux-foundation.org" <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	"torvalds@...ux-foundation.org" <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"Song, Youquan" <youquan.song@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [patch 3/4] stop_machine: implement
 stop_machine_from_offline_cpu()

On Thu, 2011-06-23 at 02:25 -0700, 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 :-)

yeah, with more cores and sockets, this is becoming a pain. We will
bring this up with HW folks.

> 
> In commit d0af9eed5aa91b6b7b5049cae69e5ea956fd85c3 you mention that its
> specific to HT, wouldn't it make sense to limit the stop-machine use in
> the next patch to the sibling mask instead of the whole machine?

That specific issue was seen in the context of HT. But the SDM
guidelines (pre date HT and) are applicable for SMP too.

thanks,
suresh

--
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/