linux-kernel - Re: [RFC][PATCH] Improving directed yield scalability for PLE handler

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: <20120908084345.GU30238@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date:	Sat, 8 Sep 2012 14:13:45 +0530
From:	Srikar Dronamraju <srikar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:	Andrew Theurer <habanero@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc:	Raghavendra K T <raghavendra.kt@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Avi Kivity <avi@...hat.com>,
	Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@...hat.com>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
	KVM <kvm@...r.kernel.org>, chegu vinod <chegu_vinod@...com>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, X86 <x86@...nel.org>,
	Gleb Natapov <gleb@...hat.com>,
	Srivatsa Vaddagiri <srivatsa.vaddagiri@...il.com>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH] Improving directed yield scalability for PLE
 handler

> 
> signed-off-by: Andrew Theurer <habanero@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
> 
> diff --git a/kernel/sched/core.c b/kernel/sched/core.c
> index fbf1fd0..c767915 100644
> --- a/kernel/sched/core.c
> +++ b/kernel/sched/core.c
> @@ -4844,6 +4844,9 @@ bool __sched yield_to(struct task_struct *p, bool
> preempt)
> 
>  again:
>  	p_rq = task_rq(p);
> +	if (task_running(p_rq, p) || p->state || !(p_rq->curr->flags &
> PF_VCPU)) {
> +		goto out_no_unlock;
> +	}
>  	double_rq_lock(rq, p_rq);
>  	while (task_rq(p) != p_rq) {
>  		double_rq_unlock(rq, p_rq);
> @@ -4856,8 +4859,6 @@ again:
>  	if (curr->sched_class != p->sched_class)
>  		goto out;
> 
> -	if (task_running(p_rq, p) || p->state)
> -		goto out;

Is it possible that by this time the current thread takes double rq
lock, thread p could actually be running?  i.e is there merit to keep
this check around even with your similar check above?

> 
>  	yielded = curr->sched_class->yield_to_task(rq, p, preempt);
>  	if (yielded) {
> @@ -4879,6 +4880,7 @@ again:
> 
>  out:
>  	double_rq_unlock(rq, p_rq);
> +out_no_unlock:
>  	local_irq_restore(flags);
> 
>  	if (yielded)
> 
> 

-- 
thanks and regards
Srikar

--
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/