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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20131001190515.GI5790@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date:	Tue, 1 Oct 2013 12:05:15 -0700
From:	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
Cc:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	"Srivatsa S. Bhat" <srivatsa.bhat@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
	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>,
	Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>, tony.luck@...el.com,
	bp@...en8.de
Subject: Re: [PATCH] hotplug: Optimize {get,put}_online_cpus()

On Tue, Oct 01, 2013 at 08:07:50PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> On 10/01, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Oct 01, 2013 at 07:45:08PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > >
> > > I tend to agree with Srivatsa... Without a strong reason it would be better
> > > to preserve the current logic: "some time after" should not be after the
> > > next CPU_DOWN/UP*. But I won't argue too much.
> >
> > Nah, I think breaking it is the right thing :-)
> 
> I don't really agree but I won't argue ;)

The authors of arch/x86/kernel/cpu/mcheck/mce.c would seem to be the
guys who would need to complain, given that they seem to have the only
use in 3.11.

							Thanx, Paul

> > > But note that you do not strictly need this change. Just kill cpuhp_waitcount,
> > > then we can change cpu_hotplug_begin/end to use xxx_enter/exit we discuss in
> > > another thread, this should likely "join" all synchronize_sched's.
> >
> > That would still be 4k * sync_sched() == terribly long.
> 
> No? the next xxx_enter() avoids sync_sched() if rcu callback is still
> pending. Unless __cpufreq_remove_dev_finish() is "too slow" of course.
> 
> > > Or split cpu_hotplug_begin() into 2 helpers which handle FAST -> SLOW and
> > > SLOW -> BLOCK transitions, then move the first "FAST -> SLOW" handler outside
> > > of for_each_online_cpu().
> >
> > Right, that's more messy but would work if we cannot teach cpufreq (and
> > possibly others) to not rely on state you shouldn't rely on anyway.
> 
> Yes,
> 
> > I tihnk the only guarnatee POST_DEAD should have is that it should be
> > called before UP_PREPARE of the same cpu ;-) Nothing more, nothing less.
> 
> See above... This makes POST_DEAD really "special" compared to other
> CPU_* events.
> 
> And again. Something like a global lock taken by CPU_DOWN_PREPARE and
> released by POST_DEAD or DOWN_FAILED does not look "too wrong" to me.
> 
> But I leave this to you and Srivatsa.
> 
> 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/