linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/3] rcu: Create rcu

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: <20131002154901.GA13389@redhat.com>
Date:	Wed, 2 Oct 2013 17:49:01 +0200
From:	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:	Paul 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>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] rcu: Create rcu_sync infrastructure

On 10/02, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
> From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>

Thanks! I was writing the patch, and I chose almost the same naming ;)

> Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>

Signed-off-by: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>

In fact I'd like to add my sob to 1/3 and 3/3 as well.


Paul, to remind, this is only the first step. I am going to send
the following improvements:

	1. Add rcu_sync->exlusive. The change is simple, just we
	   need s/wait_queue_head_t/completion/ in rcu_sync_struct
	   and a couple of "if (rss->exclusive)" checks in enter/exit.

	2. rcu_sync_enter() should return !!need_sync. This can help
	   in exclusive mode.

	3. rcu_sync_struct needs more function pointers (perhaps we
	   should add a single rcu_sync_struct->ops pointer but this
	   is minor). See below.

But let me repeat just in case, we should do this later.
And once this series is applied, I'll change percpu_rw_semaphore.


> +struct rcu_sync_struct {
> +	int			gp_state;
> +	int			gp_count;
> +	wait_queue_head_t	gp_wait;
> +
> +	int			cb_state;
> +	struct rcu_head		cb_head;
> +
> +	void (*sync)(void);
> +	void (*call)(struct rcu_head *, void (*)(struct rcu_head *));

Yes, and we also need rcu_sync_struct->barrier(). From the patch I was
working on:

	void rcu_sync_wait_for_callback(struct rcu_sync *sync)
	{
		int cb_state;

		BUG_ON(sync->gp_count);

		spin_lock_irq(&sync->state_lock);
		if (sync->cb_state == CB_REPLAY)
			sync->cb_state = CB_PENDING;
		cb_state = sync->cb_state;
		spin_unlock_irq(&sync->state_lock);

		if (cb_state != CB_IDLE) {
			rcu_barrier_sched();
			BUG_ON(sync->cb_state != CB_IDLE);
		}
	}

It should be called if you are going to kfree the object.

Perhaps another rcu_sync_struct->state_change(new_state) callback (set
by the user) makes sense too, this can help (for example) to implement
the array of semaphores with a single rcu_sync_struct (freeze_super).

Thanks.

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/