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: <4F39763D.3070609@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date:	Tue, 14 Feb 2012 02:14:45 +0530
From:	"Srivatsa S. Bhat" <srivatsa.bhat@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:	Tony Luck <tony.luck@...il.com>
CC:	Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Venkatesh Pallipadi <venki@...gle.com>,
	KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...il.com>,
	KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>,
	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
 -v5

On 02/14/2012 01:55 AM, Srivatsa S. Bhat wrote:

> On 02/14/2012 01:24 AM, Tony Luck wrote:
> 
>> On Thu, Feb 2, 2012 at 12:03 PM, Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au> wrote:
>>> IIRC playing with 3 archs boot code seemed like a recipe for disaster.
>>> Feel free to try to fix this in -next though, and see what breaks...
>>
>> ia64 is what breaks ... well not actually broken ... but some very
>> weird delays that
>> show up in different places depending on whether this patch is present.
>>
>> First linux-next kernel to be blessed with this patch was
>> next-20120210. Booting it
>> I see:
>> [    7.164233] Switching to clocksource itc
>> [  146.077315] pnp: PnP ACPI init
>>
>> An ugly 138.913 second delay.  Digging in the code showed that the bad bits
>> happened inside stop_machine()
>>
>> Reverting just this patch makes this big delay disappear:
>>
>> [   32.780232] Switching to clocksource itc
>> [   32.832100] pnp: PnP ACPI init
>>
>> but notice that it takes 25 extra seconds to get to this point in the
>> boot (and while
>> we expect to save some time by not re-computing num_online_cpus each time we
>> need it ... this looks to be a lot more than I'd expect!)
>>
> 
> 
> Oh no!! ia64 directly uses cpu_set() and cpu_clear() on cpu_online_map!!
> Grr.. It means num_online_cpus can be different from the actual number of
> online cpus because it doesn't go through the set_cpu_online() path.. I haven't
> yet pin-pointed the exact problem, but this definitely doesn't look good...
>  


Hmm.. interesting.. The only calls that ia64 uses which updates the
num_online_cpus macro seem to be init_cpu_online(cpumask_of(0)); Atleast this
is what the mainline code tells me (haven't checked linux-next).

So, if I am not mistaken, is the value of num_online_cpus() always 1 when
Venki's patch is applied?

IOW, what output do you see from the following printk from
arch/ia64/kernel/smpboot.c?

printk(KERN_INFO "Total of %d processors activated (%lu.%02lu BogoMIPS).\n",
         (int)num_online_cpus(), bogosum/(500000/HZ), (bogosum/(5000/HZ))%100);


Regards,
Srivatsa S. Bhat

--
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/