linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] rwsem-spinlock: let rwsem write lock stealable

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20130201021628.GC12678@yliu-dev.sh.intel.com>
Date:	Fri, 1 Feb 2013 10:16:28 +0800
From:	Yuanhan Liu <yuanhan.liu@...ux.intel.com>
To:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
Cc:	Michel Lespinasse <walken@...gle.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] rwsem-spinlock: let rwsem write lock stealable

On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 10:18:18PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> 
> * Yuanhan Liu <yuanhan.liu@...ux.intel.com> wrote:
> 
> > On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 02:12:28PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > > 
> > > * Yuanhan Liu <yuanhan.liu@...ux.intel.com> wrote:
> > > 
> > > > BTW, mind to tell a nice test case for mmap_sem?
> > > 
> > > this one was write-hitting on mmap_sem pretty hard, last I 
> > > checked:
> > > 
> > >   http://people.redhat.com/mingo/threaded-mmap-stresstest/
> > 
> > Thanks!
> > 
> > Is there any pass condition? I tested a while, at least I 
> > found no oops or any noisy from dmesg output. Is that OK?
> 
> Yeah, not crashing and not hanging is the expected behavior.

Good to know.

> 
> > Well, sometimes, it will quit peacefully. Sometimes it will 
> > not. ps -eo 'pid, state,wchan,comm' shows that it is sleeping 
> > at futex_wait_queue_me().
> > 
> > NOTE: this happens both with or w/o this patch. Thus it may 
> > not an issue introduced by this patch?
> 
> hm, that's unexpected - it's expected to loop infinitely.

Reall sorry about that. My bad. I modify the code a bit: removed the two
//, so that thread will exit after count > 1000000.

Sorry again :(

	--yliu

> I have 
> a newer version (attached) - is that exiting too?
> 
> Maybe this triggers spuriously:
> 
>         if (!info->si_addr)
>                 raise(SIGABRT); /* Allow GDB backtrace */
> 
> although then you should see the SIGABRT as an irregular exit 
> IIRC.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> 	Ingo


--
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/