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: <20131002090859.GE12926@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date:	Wed, 2 Oct 2013 11:08:59 +0200
From:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
Cc:	"Srivatsa S. Bhat" <srivatsa.bhat@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	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>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] hotplug: Optimize {get,put}_online_cpus()

On Tue, Oct 01, 2013 at 08:07:50PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > > 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.

Hmm,. not in the version you posted; there xxx_enter() would only not do
the sync_sched if there's a concurrent 'writer', in which case it will
wait for it.

You only avoid the sync_sched in xxx_exit() and potentially join in the
sync_sched() of a next xxx_begin().

So with that scheme:

  for (i= ; i<4096; i++) {
    xxx_begin();
    xxx_exit();
  }

Will get 4096 sync_sched() calls from the xxx_begin() and all but the
last xxx_exit() will 'drop' the rcu callback.

And given the construct; I'm not entirely sure you can do away with the
sync_sched() in between. While its clear to me you can merge the two
into one; leaving it out entirely doesn't seem right.
--
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/