linux-kernel - [PATCH -rt] ipc/sem: Rework semaphore wakeups

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: <1315994224.5040.1.camel@twins>
Date:	Wed, 14 Sep 2011 11:57:04 +0200
From:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:	Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>
Cc:	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	linux-rt-users <linux-rt-users@...r.kernel.org>,
	Manfred Spraul <manfred@...orfullife.com>
Subject: [PATCH -rt] ipc/sem: Rework semaphore wakeups

Subject: ipc/sem: Rework semaphore wakeups
From: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
Date: Tue Sep 13 15:09:40 CEST 2011

Current sysv sems have a weird ass wakeup scheme that involves keeping
preemption disabled over a potential O(n^2) loop and busy waiting on
that on other CPUs.

Kill this and simply wake the task directly from under the sem_lock.

This was discovered by a migrate_disable() debug feature that
disallows:

  spin_lock();
  preempt_disable();
  spin_unlock()
  preempt_enable();

Cc: Manfred Spraul <manfred@...orfullife.com>
Suggested-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Reported-by: Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
---
 ipc/sem.c |   10 ++++++++++
 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+)

Index: linux-rt/ipc/sem.c
===================================================================
--- linux-rt.orig/ipc/sem.c
+++ linux-rt/ipc/sem.c
@@ -415,6 +415,13 @@ static int try_atomic_semop (struct sem_
 static void wake_up_sem_queue_prepare(struct list_head *pt,
 				struct sem_queue *q, int error)
 {
+#ifdef CONFIG_PREEMPT_RT_BASE
+	struct task_struct *p = q->sleeper;
+	get_task_struct(p);
+	q->status = error;
+	wake_up_process(p);
+	put_task_struct(p);
+#else
 	if (list_empty(pt)) {
 		/*
 		 * Hold preempt off so that we don't get preempted and have the
@@ -426,6 +433,7 @@ static void wake_up_sem_queue_prepare(st
 	q->pid = error;
 
 	list_add_tail(&q->simple_list, pt);
+#endif
 }
 
 /**
@@ -439,6 +447,7 @@ static void wake_up_sem_queue_prepare(st
  */
 static void wake_up_sem_queue_do(struct list_head *pt)
 {
+#ifndef CONFIG_PREEMPT_RT_BASE
 	struct sem_queue *q, *t;
 	int did_something;
 
@@ -451,6 +460,7 @@ static void wake_up_sem_queue_do(struct
 	}
 	if (did_something)
 		preempt_enable();
+#endif
 }
 
 static void unlink_queue(struct sem_array *sma, struct sem_queue *q)

--
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/