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
| ||
|
Date: Wed, 31 Jul 2013 21:58:16 -0400 From: Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com> To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> CC: Paul Turner <pjt@...gle.com>, Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, jmario@...hat.com, Peter Anvin <hpa@...or.com>, dzickus@...hat.com, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH] sched,x86: optimize switch_mm for multi-threaded workloads On 07/31/2013 08:41 PM, Linus Torvalds wrote: > On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 4:14 PM, Paul Turner <pjt@...gle.com> wrote: >> We attached the following explanatory comment to our version of the patch: >> >> /* >> * In the common case (two user threads sharing mm >> * switching) the bit will be set; avoid doing a write >> * (via atomic test & set) unless we have to. This is >> * safe, because no other CPU ever writes to our bit >> * in the mask, and interrupts are off (so we can't >> * take a TLB IPI here.) If we don't do this, then >> * switching threads will pingpong the cpumask >> * cacheline. >> */ > > So as mentioned, the "interrupts will be off" is actually dubious. > It's true for the context switch case, but not for the activate_mm(). > > However, as Rik points out, activate_mm() is different in that we > shouldn't have any preexisting MMU state anyway. And besides, that > should never trigger the "prev == next" case. > > But it does look a bit messy, and even your comment is a bit > misleading (it might make somebody think that all of switch_mm() is > protected from interrupts) > . > Anyway, I'm perfectly ok with the patch itself, but I just wanted to > make sure people had thought about these things. Would you like me to document the things we found in the comment, and resend a patch, or is the patch good as-is? -- All rights reversed -- 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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists