linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH v3 1/9] CPU hotplug: Provide APIs to prevent CPU offline from atomic context

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]

Date:	Fri, 7 Dec 2012 10:31:41 -0800
From:	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To:	"Srivatsa S. Bhat" <srivatsa.bhat@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc:	tglx@...utronix.de, peterz@...radead.org,
	paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, rusty@...tcorp.com.au,
	mingo@...nel.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org, namhyung@...nel.org,
	vincent.guittot@...aro.org, oleg@...hat.com, sbw@....edu,
	amit.kucheria@...aro.org, rostedt@...dmis.org, rjw@...k.pl,
	wangyun@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, xiaoguangrong@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
	nikunj@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v3 1/9] CPU hotplug: Provide APIs to prevent CPU
 offline from atomic context

Hello, Srivatsa.

On Fri, Dec 07, 2012 at 11:54:01PM +0530, Srivatsa S. Bhat wrote:
> > lg_lock doesn't do local nesting and I'm not sure how big a deal that
> > is as I don't know how many should be converted.  But if nesting is an
> > absolute necessity, it would be much better to implement generic
> > rwlock variant (say, lg_rwlock) rather than implementing unusual
> > cpuhotplug-specific percpu synchronization construct.
> 
> To be honest, at a certain point in time while designing this, I did
> realize that this was getting kinda overly complicated ;-) ... but I
> wanted to see how this would actually work out when finished and get
> some feedback on the same, hence I posted it out. But this also proves
> that we _can_ actually compete with the flexibility of preempt_disable()
> and still be safe with respect to locking, if we really want to ;-)

I got confused by comparison to preempt_disable() but you're right
that percpu rwlock shouldn't be able to introduce locking dependency
which doesn't exist with non-percpu rwlock.  ie. write locking should
be atomic w.r.t. to all readers.  At the simplest, this can be
implemented by writer backing out all the way if try-locking any CPU
fails and retrying the whole thing.  That should be correct but has
the potential of starving the writer.

What we need here is a generic percpu-rwlock.  I don't know which
exact implementation strategy we should choose.  Maybe your switching
to global rwlock is the right solution.  But, at any rate, I think it
would be best to implement proper percpu-rwlock and then apply it to
CPU hotplug.  It's actually gonna be pretty fitting as
get_online_cpus() is being converted to percpu-rwsem.  IIUC, Oleg has
been working on this for a while now.  Oleg, what do you think?

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/