linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] hotplug: Optimize {get,put}_online

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]

Date:	Tue, 1 Oct 2013 07:45:37 -0700
From:	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
Cc:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>, Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
	Srikar Dronamraju <srikar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
	Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>,
	Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
	Linux-MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] hotplug: Optimize {get,put}_online_cpus()

On Tue, Oct 01, 2013 at 04:14:29PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> On 09/30, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Sep 27, 2013 at 10:41:16PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > On Fri, Sep 27, 2013 at 08:15:32PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > > > On 09/26, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> >
> > [ . . . ]
> >
> > > > > +static bool cpuhp_readers_active_check(void)
> > > > >  {
> > > > > +	unsigned int seq = per_cpu_sum(cpuhp_seq);
> > > > > +
> > > > > +	smp_mb(); /* B matches A */
> > > > > +
> > > > > +	/*
> > > > > +	 * In other words, if we see __get_online_cpus() cpuhp_seq increment,
> > > > > +	 * we are guaranteed to also see its __cpuhp_refcount increment.
> > > > > +	 */
> > > > >
> > > > > +	if (per_cpu_sum(__cpuhp_refcount) != 0)
> > > > > +		return false;
> > > > >
> > > > > +	smp_mb(); /* D matches C */
> > > >
> > > > It seems that both barries could be smp_rmb() ? I am not sure the comments
> > > > from srcu_readers_active_idx_check() can explain mb(), note that
> > > > __srcu_read_lock() always succeeds unlike get_cpus_online().
> > >
> > > I see what you mean; cpuhp_readers_active_check() is all purely reads;
> > > there are no writes to order.
> > >
> > > Paul; is there any argument for the MB here as opposed to RMB; and if
> > > not should we change both these and SRCU?
> >
> > Given that these memory barriers execute only on the semi-slow path,
> > why add the complexity of moving from smp_mb() to either smp_rmb()
> > or smp_wmb()?  Straight smp_mb() is easier to reason about and more
> > robust against future changes.
> 
> But otoh this looks misleading, and the comments add more confusion.
> 
> But please note another email, it seems to me we can simply kill
> cpuhp_seq and all the barriers in cpuhp_readers_active_check().

If you don't have cpuhp_seq, you need some other way to avoid
counter overflow.  Which might be provided by limited number of
tasks, or, on 64-bit systems, 64-bit counters.

							Thanx, Paul

--
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/