linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/2] nohz: Disable LOCKUP_DETECTOR when NO_HZ

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: <20130519161843.GI4006@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date:	Sun, 19 May 2013 09:18:43 -0700
From:	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Cc:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Don Zickus <dzickus@...hat.com>,
	Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] nohz: Disable LOCKUP_DETECTOR when NO_HZ_FULL is
 enabled

On Thu, May 16, 2013 at 02:32:58PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Thu, 2013-05-16 at 19:56 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> 
> > I suppose the fundamental question was: will receiving NMIs negate NO_HZ_FULL's
> > functionality? That is, will the getting of NMIs make us drop out of NO_HZ_FULL
> > and re-enable all sorts of things?
> 
> It shouldn't. The nmi_enter() notifies RCU that it can no longer ignore
> this CPU, where as nmi_enter() tells it that it can ignore it, as it has
> re-entered user space.
> 
> > 
> > Because clearly RCU needs to exit from EQS, which might (or might not) mean
> > leaving NO_HZ_FULL.
> 
> Yep, but the two are pretty much agnostic from each other.
> 
> We only need to leave NO_HZ_FULL if RCU (or anything for that matter)
> required having a tick again. But as Paul said, getting an NMI in idle
> wont restart the tick, so there's no need to restart it here either.
> 
> Now if an NMI were to do a call_rcu() then it would require a tick. But
> NMIs doing call_rcu() has much bigger issues to worry about ;-)

Someone invoking call_rcu() from an NMI handler will get what they deserve,
good and hard!  ;-)

							Thanx, Paul

> -- Steve
> 
> > 
> > I'm not entirely up-to-date on those details.
> 
> 
> --
> 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/
> 

--
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/