linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 4/5] rcusync: introduce rcu_sync

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:	Fri, 4 Oct 2013 22:41:59 +0200
From:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
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 4/5] rcusync: introduce rcu_sync_struct->exclusive mode

On Fri, Oct 04, 2013 at 09:56:23PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:

> Hmm. perhaps you meant that this should be done before rcu_sync_enter()
> increments ->gp_count. Perhaps this can work, but the code will be more
> complex and this way rcu_sync_exit() will always schedule the callback?

Yah, however see below.

> And again, we do want to increment ->gp_count asap to disable this cb
> if it is already pending.

Ah indeed, I forgot about that. We'd have to wait until we'd get
scheduled to increment gp_count again. However I think we can fix this
and the above problem by introduction of rcu_sync_busy() which checks
for eiter gp_count or pending waiters.

But yes, slightly more complex code :/

That would yield something like so I suppose:

void rcu_sync_enter(struct rcu_sync_struct *rss)
{
	bool need_wait, need_sync;

	spin_lock_irq(&rss->rss_lock);
	if (rss->exclusive && rss->gp_count) {
		__wait_event_locked(rss->gp_wait, rss->gp_count);
		rss->gp_count++;
		need_wait = need_sync = false;
	} else {
		need_wait = rss->gp_count++;
		need_sync = rss->gp_state == GP_IDLE;
		if (need_sync)
			rss->gp_state = GP_PENDING;
	}
	spin_unlock_irq(&rss->lock);

	if (need_sync) {
		rss->sync();
		rss->gp_state = GP_PASSED;
		wake_up_all(&rss->gp_wait);
	} else if (need_wait) {
		wait_event(rss->gp_wait, rss->gp_state == GP_PASSED);
	} else {
		BUG_ON(rss->gp_state != GP_PASSED);
	}
}

static bool rcu_sync_busy(struct rcu_sync_struct *rss)
{
	return rss->gp_count ||
		(rss->exclusive && waitqueue_active(&rss->gp_wait));
}

static void rcu_sync_func(struct rcu_head *rcu)
{
	struct rcu_sync_struct *rss =
		container_of(rcu, struct rcu_sync_struct, cb_head);
	unsigned long flags;

	BUG_ON(rss->gp_state != GP_PASSED);
	BUG_ON(rss->cb_state == CB_IDLE);

	spin_lock_irqsave(&rss->rss_lock, flags);
	if (rcu_sync_busy(rss)) {
		/*
		 * A new rcu_sync_begin() has happened; drop the callback.
		 */
		rss->cb_state = CB_IDLE;
	} else if (rss->cb_state == CB_REPLAY) {
		/*
		 * A new rcu_sync_exit() has happened; requeue the callback
		 * to catch a later GP.
		 */
		rss->cb_state = CB_PENDING;
		rss->call(&rss->cb_head, rcu_sync_func);
	} else {
		/*
		 * We're at least a GP after rcu_sync_exit(); eveybody will now
		 * have observed the write side critical section. Let 'em rip!.
		 */
		rss->cb_state = CB_IDLE;
		rss->gp_state = GP_IDLE;
	}
	spin_unlock_irqrestore(&rss->rss_lock, flags);
}

void rcu_sync_exit(struct rcu_sync_struct *rss)
{
	spin_lock_irq(&rss->rss_lock);
	if (!--rss->gp_count) {
		if (!rcu_sync_busy(rss)) {
			if (rss->cb_state == CB_IDLE) {
				rss->cb_state = CB_PENDING;
				rss->call(&rss->cb_head, rcu_sync_func);
			} else if (rss->cb_state == CB_PENDING) {
				rss->cb_state = CB_REPLAY;
			}
		} else {
			__wake_up_locked(&rss->gp_wait, TASK_NORMAL, 1);
		}
	}
	spin_unlock_irq(&rss->rss_lock);
}
--
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/