linux-kernel - Re: [PATCHSET] workqueue: reimplement CPU hotplug to keep idle workers

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: <20120720170802.GF32763@google.com>
Date:	Fri, 20 Jul 2012 10:08:02 -0700
From:	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, torvalds@...ux-foundation.org,
	tglx@...utronix.de, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCHSET] workqueue: reimplement CPU hotplug to keep idle
 workers

Hello, Peter.

On Fri, Jul 20, 2012 at 07:01:40PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Fri, 2012-07-20 at 09:52 -0700, Tejun Heo wrote:
> > Ooh, yeah, I agree.  That's next on the wq to-do list.  The problem is
> > that queue_work() is implemented in terms of queue_work_on().  
> 
> But that's trivial to fix, both could use __queue_work() without too
> much bother, right?

Hmmm?  Not really.  We need to keep count of the ones which reqested
fixed binding - ie. the ones which explicitly used queue_work_on() -
and then flush on wq CPU_DOWN.  Then, we need to audit the current
users which are using queue_work{_on}() + explicit FLUSH on CPU_DOWN
and convert them.

> > The assumption was that they should flush during CPU_DOWN but it
> > probably will be much better to require users which need CPU affinity
> > to always use queue_work_on() - instead of implicit local affinity
> > from queue_work() - and flush them automatically from wq callback.
> 
> Right, and when you create this new mode, which you need to know to
> flush on DOWN, you can simply put a BUG_ON in queue_work_on() when this
> mode is set.

BUG_ON() on queue_work_on()?  Do you mean if the target CPU is down?
If so, yeah, I'd probably go with WARN_ON_ONCE() but we should whine
on it.

Thanks.

-- 
tejun
--
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/