linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH tip/core/rcu 11/26] rcu: Exit RCU extended QS on user preemption

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: <1347458966.15764.29.camel@twins>
Date:	Wed, 12 Sep 2012 16:09:26 +0200
From:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:	Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
Cc:	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, mingo@...e.hu, laijs@...fujitsu.com,
	dipankar@...ibm.com, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
	mathieu.desnoyers@...ymtl.ca, josh@...htriplett.org,
	niv@...ibm.com, tglx@...utronix.de, rostedt@...dmis.org,
	Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu, dhowells@...hat.com,
	eric.dumazet@...il.com, darren@...art.com, sbw@....edu,
	patches@...aro.org, Alessio Igor Bogani <abogani@...nel.org>,
	Avi Kivity <avi@...hat.com>,
	Chris Metcalf <cmetcalf@...era.com>,
	Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>,
	Geoff Levand <geoff@...radead.org>,
	Gilad Ben Yossef <gilad@...yossef.com>,
	Hakan Akkan <hakanakkan@...il.com>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
	Kevin Hilman <khilman@...com>,
	Max Krasnyansky <maxk@...lcomm.com>,
	Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@...tta.com>,
	Sven-Thorsten Dietrich <thebigcorporation@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH tip/core/rcu 11/26] rcu: Exit RCU extended QS on user
 preemption

On Wed, 2012-09-12 at 15:54 +0200, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 02:52:40PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Wed, 2012-09-12 at 14:41 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > 
> > > We could of course mandate that all remote wakeups to special nohz cpus
> > > get queued. That would just leave us with RCU and it would simply not
> > > send resched IPIs to extended quiescent CPUs anyway, right?
> > > 
> > > So at that point all return to user schedule() calls have nr_running > 1
> > > and the tick is running and RCU is not in extended quiescent state.
> > > Since either we had nr_running > 1 and pre and post state are the same,
> > > or we had nr_running == 1 and we just got a fresh wakeup pushing it to
> > > 2, the wakeup will have executed on our cpu and have re-started the tick
> > > and kicked RCU into active gear again.
> > > 
> > > We cannot hit return to user schedule() with nr_running == 0, simply
> > > because in that case there's no userspace to return to, only the idle
> > > thread and that's very much not userspace :-)
> > > 
> > > Hmm ?
> > 
> > Crap.. this will screw over -rt, since the wakeups batch the IPI can
> > take forever so we had to disable this.
> 
> I don't know that part of -rt. Probably we can deal with that later once
> we have some upstream code in place?

Yeah maybe.. its going to be hard though, anyway, I'm going to stare at
wtf drm is doing for a bit :-)
--
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/