linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v6] sched: fix init NOHZ

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: <1366630759.4077.6.camel@laptop>
Date:	Mon, 22 Apr 2013 13:39:19 +0200
From:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:	Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>
Cc:	linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linaro-kernel@...ts.linaro.org" <linaro-kernel@...ts.linaro.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
	Frédéric Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
	Paul Turner <pjt@...gle.com>,
	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
	Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6] sched: fix init NOHZ_IDLE flag

On Mon, 2013-04-22 at 13:01 +0200, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> > I'm not quite getting things.. what's wrong with adding this flags
> > thing to sched_domain itself? That's already RCU destroyed so why
> add a
> > second RCU layer?
> 
> We need one flags for all sched_domain so if we add it into
> sched_domain struct, we have to define which one will handle the flags
> for all other and find it in the sched_domain tree when we need it.

Just pick rq->sd -- if the root_domain thing doesn't work out.

>  In
> addition, the flags in other sched_domain will be a waste of space.
> The RCU in sched_domain might become useless as it is protected by the
> one that is in sched_domain_rq

I'm all for wasting space instead over adding extra pointer chasing all
over the place. But also, look at pahole -C sched_domain, there's
plenty of 4 byte holes in there where we can stuff a single bit.

> > We also have the root_domain for things that don't need to go in a
> > hierarchy but are once per cpu -- it sounds like this is one of
> those
> > things; iirc the root_domain life-time is the same as the entire
> > sched_domain tree so adding it to the root_domain is also an option.
> 
> AFAICT, it doesn't share the same RCU object and as a result the same
> lifecycle than sched_domain so there is a time window where
> sched_domain and flags could lost their synchronization.
> Nevertheless, i'm going to have a look at root_domain

They're set under the same write side lock at the same time rq->sd it
set, but yes I suppose that since its a separate pointer there might be
a tiny window where we could go wrong.

--
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/