linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/4] CPU hotplug, cpusets: Fix CPU online handling related to cpusets

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Sat, 11 Feb 2012 08:00:40 -0800
From:	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
Cc:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	"Srivatsa S. Bhat" <srivatsa.bhat@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	paul@...lmenage.org, rjw@...k.pl, tj@...nel.org,
	frank.rowand@...sony.com, pjt@...gle.com, tglx@...utronix.de,
	lizf@...fujitsu.com, prashanth@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
	vatsa@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-pm@...r.kernel.org,
	"akpm@...ux-foundation.org" <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4] CPU hotplug, cpusets: Fix CPU online handling
 related to cpusets

On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 06:34:04PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Fri, 2012-02-10 at 08:53 -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 04:52:07PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > On Thu, 2012-02-09 at 16:11 +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > > 
> > > > > My understanding of the code is that when a CPU is taken 
> > > > > offline, it is removed from all the cpusets and then the 
> > > > > scan_for_empty_cpusets() function is run to move tasks from 
> > > > > empty cpusets to their parent cpusets.
> > > > 
> > > > Why is that done that way? offlining a CPU should be an 
> > > > invariant as far as cpusets are concerned.
> > > 
> > > Can't, tasks need to run someplace. There's two choices, add a still
> > > online cpu to the now empty cpuset or move the tasks to a parent that
> > > still has online cpus.
> > > 
> > > Both are destructive.
> > 
> > OK, I will ask the stupid question...  Hey, somebody has to!  ;-)
> > 
> > Would it make sense for offlining the last CPU in a cpuset to be
> > destructive, but to allow offlining of a non-last CPU to be reversible?
> 
> No, that's very inconsistent and will lead to way more 'surprises'. 

It might well lead to surprises, but so does INT_MIN==-INT_MIN.  IOW,
the inconsistency certainly is a disadvantage, but it must be weighed
against the disadvantages of the current situation.

> > /me ducks.  ;-)
> 
> /me quacks ;-)
> 
> Now the whole problem here seems to be that suspend uses cpu-hotplug to
> reduce the machine to UP -- I've no clue why it does that but I can
> imagine its because the BIOS calls only work on CPU0 and/or the resume
> only wakes CPU0 so you have to bootstrap the SMP thing again..
> 
> Some suspend person wanna clarify? Rafael?
> 
> Anyway, the whole suspend case is magic anyway since all tasks will have
> been frozen, so we could simply leave all of cpuset alone and ignore the
> hotplug notifier on CPU_TASKS_FROZEN callbacks, hmm?
> 
> Do we unfreeze after we bring up the machine again?

Agreed, the suspend case is the highest priority in that losing your cpusets
after suspending and resuming is -very- surprising.  ;-)

							Thanx, Paul

--
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/