linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] Avoid mask based num_possible_cpus and num_online

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: <4F1CEEA3.9050009@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date:	Mon, 23 Jan 2012 10:52:43 +0530
From:	"Srivatsa S. Bhat" <srivatsa.bhat@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:	Venki Pallipadi <venki@...gle.com>
CC:	KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...il.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Mike Travis <travis@....com>,
	"Paul E. McKenney" <paul.mckenney@...aro.org>,
	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>,
	Paul Gortmaker <paul.gortmaker@...driver.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Avoid mask based num_possible_cpus and num_online_cpus

On 01/21/2012 05:25 AM, Venki Pallipadi wrote:

> On Fri, Jan 20, 2012 at 3:45 PM, KOSAKI Motohiro
> <kosaki.motohiro@...il.com> wrote:
>>>>> +int nr_online_cpus __read_mostly;
>>>>> +EXPORT_SYMBOL(nr_online_cpus);
>>>>> +
>>>>>  void set_cpu_possible(unsigned int cpu, bool possible)
>>>>>  {
>>>>>       if (possible)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Did you forget to add:
>>>>
>>>>        nr_possible_cpus = cpumask_weight(cpu_possible_mask);
>>>>
>>>> inside set_cpu_possible() ?
>>>
>>> No. That was intentional as I have that coupled with nr_cpu_ids and
>>> set once after all the bits are set in setup_nr_cpu_ids() instead of
>>> doing for each bit set.
>>
>> But, Srivatsa's way seems more safer, no? Is there any advantage to make couple
>> with nr_cpu_ids?
> 
> I think it is a tradeoff between safer and cleaner :). infact, that's
> how I had coded the patch first. But, then I changed it to be in sync
> with nr_cpu_ids as it seemed a bit cleaner (and also to make sure 2048
> CPU guys won't come after me for doing the mask calculation 2048 times
> during the boot).
> 


I knew you were trying to optimize further when I saw your patch. That's
precisely the reason I cross-checked the code to ensure that the optimization
didn't go beyond correctness :)

And this is what I found:

start_kernel()
  setup_nr_cpu_ids() // This is not the end of setting up cpu_possible_mask
  rest_init()
    kernel_init()
      smp_prepare_cpus();

And on x86, this becomes:
      native_smp_prepare_cpus();
        smp_sanity_check(); // cpu_possible_mask & nr_cpu_ids can change here!
           ^^^^^^^^^

And there is another place where things can change:
prefill_possible_map(). But this is called in setup_arch(), which is called
before setup_nr_cpu_ids(). So we need not worry about this.

(Btw, I checked only the x86 arch. Not sure how other architectures handle
things.)

Regards,
Srivatsa S. Bhat
IBM Linux Technology Center

--
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/