linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH v4 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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Wed, 19 Dec 2012 01:36:11 +0530
From:	"Srivatsa S. Bhat" <srivatsa.bhat@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.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, tj@...nel.org, 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 v4 1/9] CPU hotplug: Provide APIs to prevent CPU offline
 from atomic context

On 12/19/2012 01:13 AM, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> On 12/18, Srivatsa S. Bhat wrote:
>>
>> So now that we can't avoid disabling and enabling interrupts,
> 
> Still I think it would be better to not use local_irq_save/restore
> directly.

Sure, we can use this_cpu_add() itself. I explicitly used
local_irq_save/restore here just to explain my question.

> And,
> 
>> I was
>> wondering if we could exploit this to avoid the smp_mb()..
>>
>> Maybe this is a stupid question, but I'll shoot it anyway...
>> Does local_irq_disable()/enable provide any ordering guarantees by any chance?
> 
> Oh, I do not know.
> 
> But please look at the comment above prepare_to_wait(). It assumes
> that even spin_unlock_irqrestore() is not the full barrier.
> 

Semi-permeable barrier.. Hmm.. 

> In any case. get_online_cpus_atomic() has to use irq_restore, not
> irq_enable. And _restore does nothing "special" if irqs were already
> disabled, so I think we can't rely on sti.
> 

Right, I forgot about the _restore part.

>> I tried thinking about other ways to avoid that smp_mb() in the reader,
> 
> Just in case, I think there is no way to avoid mb() in _get (although
> perhaps it can be "implicit").
> 

Actually, I was trying to avoid mb() in the _fastpath_, when there is no
active writer. I missed stating that clearly, sorry.

> The writer changes cpu_online_mask and drops the lock. We need to ensure
> that the reader sees the change in cpu_online_mask after _get returns.
> 

The write_unlock() will ensure the completion of the update to cpu_online_mask,
using the same semi-permeable logic that you pointed above. So readers will
see the update as soon as the writer releases the lock, right?

>> but was unsuccessful. So if the above assumption is wrong, I guess we'll
>> just have to go with the version that uses synchronize_sched() at the
>> writer-side.
> 
> In this case we can also convert get_online_cpus() to use percpu_rwsem
> and avoid mutex_lock(&cpu_hotplug.lock), but this is minor I guess.
> I do not think get_online_cpus() is called too often.
> 

Yes, we could do that as well. I remember you saying that you had some
patches for percpu_rwsem to help use it in cpu hotplug code (to make it
recursive, IIRC).

So, I guess we'll go with the synchronize_sched() approach for percpu rwlocks
then. Tejun, it is still worthwhile to expose this as a generic percpu rwlock
and then use it inside cpu hotplug code, right?


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/