linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH RFC tip/core/rcu 19/28] nohz: Allow rcu extended quiescent state handling seperately from tick stop

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: <20111103040003.GE2042@leaf>
Date:	Wed, 2 Nov 2011 21:00:03 -0700
From:	Josh Triplett <josh@...htriplett.org>
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, 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,
	patches@...aro.org, Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
	Mike Frysinger <vapier@...too.org>,
	Guan Xuetao <gxt@...c.pku.edu.cn>,
	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
	Chris Metcalf <cmetcalf@...era.com>,
	Hans-Christian Egtvedt <hans-christian.egtvedt@...el.com>,
	Ralf Baechle <ralf@...ux-mips.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
	Russell King <linux@....linux.org.uk>,
	Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
	Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@...ibm.com>,
	Paul Mundt <lethal@...ux-sh.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC tip/core/rcu 19/28] nohz: Allow rcu extended
 quiescent state handling seperately from tick stop

On Wed, Nov 02, 2011 at 01:30:40PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> From: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
> 
> It is assumed that rcu won't be used once we switch to tickless
> mode and until we restart the tick. However this is not always
> true, as in x86-64 where we dereference the idle notifiers after
> the tick is stopped.
> 
> To prepare for fixing this, add two new APIs:
> tick_nohz_idle_enter_norcu() and tick_nohz_idle_exit_norcu().
> 
> If no use of RCU is made in the idle loop between
> tick_nohz_enter_idle() and tick_nohz_exit_idle() calls, the arch
> must instead call the new *_norcu() version such that the arch doesn't
> need to call rcu_idle_enter() and rcu_idle_exit().

The _norcu names confused me a bit.  At first, I thought they meant
"idle but not RCU idle, so you can use RCU", but from re-reading the
commit message, apparently they mean "idle and RCU idle, so don't use
RCU".  What about something like _forbid_rcu instead?  Or,
alternatively, why not just go ahead and separate the two types of idle
entirely rather than introducing the _norcu variants first?

- Josh Triplett
--
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/