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]

Message-ID: <20131001154006.GA3848@redhat.com>
Date:	Tue, 1 Oct 2013 17:40:06 +0200
From:	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To:	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.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 10/01, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
>
> On Sun, Sep 29, 2013 at 03:56:46PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > On 09/27, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > >
> > > I tried hard to find any hole in this version but failed, I believe it
> > > is correct.
> >
> > And I still believe it is. But now I am starting to think that we
> > don't need cpuhp_seq. (and imo cpuhp_waitcount, but this is minor).
>
> Here is one scenario that I believe requires cpuhp_seq:
>
> 1.	Task 0 on CPU 0 increments its counter on entry.
>
> 2.	Task 1 on CPU 1 starts summing the counters and gets to
> 	CPU 4.  The sum thus far is 1 (Task 0).
>
> 3.	Task 2 on CPU 2 increments its counter on entry.
> 	Upon completing its entry code, it re-enables preemption.

afaics at this stage it should notice state = BLOCK and decrement
the same counter on the same CPU before it does preempt_enable().

Because:

> > 	2. It is the reader which tries to take this lock and
> > 	   noticed state == BLOCK. We could miss the result of
> > 	   its inc(), but we do not care, this reader is going
> > 	   to block.
> >
> > 	   _If_ the reader could migrate between inc/dec, then
> > 	   yes, we have a problem. Because that dec() could make
> > 	   the result of per_cpu_sum() = 0. IOW, we could miss
> > 	   inc() but notice dec(). But given that it does this
> > 	   on the same CPU this is not possible.
> >
> > So why do we need cpuhp_seq?
>
> Good question, I will look again.

Thanks! much appreciated.

Oleg.

--
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/