linux-kernel - [PATCH 1/2] hrtimer: Consider preemption when migrating hrtimer cpu

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: <1365628068-32738-2-git-send-email-mbohan@codeaurora.org>
Date:	Wed, 10 Apr 2013 14:07:47 -0700
From:	Michael Bohan <mbohan@...eaurora.org>
To:	tglx@...utronix.de
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org
Subject: [PATCH 1/2] hrtimer: Consider preemption when migrating hrtimer cpu_bases

When switching to a new cpu_base in switch_hrtimer_base(), we
briefly enable preemption by unlocking the cpu_base lock in two
places. During this interval it's possible for the running thread
to be swapped to a different CPU.

Consider the following example:

CPU #0                                 CPU #1
----                                   ----
hrtimer_start()                        ...
 lock_hrtimer_base()
 switch_hrtimer_base()
  this_cpu = 0;
  target_cpu_base = 0;
  raw_spin_unlock(&cpu_base->lock)
<migrate to CPU 1>
...                                    this_cpu == 0
                                       cpu == this_cpu
                                       timer->base = CPU #0
                                       timer->base != LOCAL_CPU

Since the cached this_cpu is no longer accurate, we'll skip the
hrtimer_check_target() check. Once we eventually go to program
the hardware, we'll decide not to do so since it knows the real
CPU that we're running on is not the same as the chosen base. As
a consequence, we may end up missing the hrtimer's deadline.

Fix this by updating the local CPU number each time we retake a
cpu_base lock in switch_hrtimer_base().

Another possibility is to disable preemption across the whole of
switch_hrtimer_base. This looks suboptimal since preemption
would be disabled while waiting for lock(s).

Signed-off-by: Michael Bohan <mbohan@...eaurora.org>
---
 kernel/hrtimer.c |    4 +++-
 1 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)

diff --git a/kernel/hrtimer.c b/kernel/hrtimer.c
index cc47812..3f0bce9 100644
--- a/kernel/hrtimer.c
+++ b/kernel/hrtimer.c
@@ -225,10 +225,12 @@ again:
 		raw_spin_unlock(&base->cpu_base->lock);
 		raw_spin_lock(&new_base->cpu_base->lock);

+		this_cpu = smp_processor_id();
+
 		if (cpu != this_cpu && hrtimer_check_target(timer, new_base)) {
-			cpu = this_cpu;
 			raw_spin_unlock(&new_base->cpu_base->lock);
 			raw_spin_lock(&base->cpu_base->lock);
+			cpu = smp_processor_id();
 			timer->base = base;
 			goto again;
 		}
-- 
The Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of the Code Aurora Forum,
hosted by The Linux Foundation

--
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/